PRIVATE BUSINESS

Broads Authority Bill

Order for Second Reading read.
	 To be read a Second Time on Tuesday 6 February.

National Trust (Northern Ireland) Bill

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions

TRANSPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Rail Franchise Agreements

Mark Lancaster: If he will provide for new rail franchise agreements to include a requirement for a maximum time a rail commuter should expect to stand without having access to a seat.

Douglas Alexander: Before I answer the question, on behalf of the Government I express the sympathy of this side of the House to the family of Paul Channon, the former Member for Southend, West. He served as Secretary of State for Transport between 1987 and 1989, during which time he had to deal with both the Clapham Junction rail crash and the Lockerbie disaster. Our thoughts are with his family at this time.
	The Government recognise the pressures faced by many passengers at the busiest times on the busiest routes into work. That is why, in all franchises that we let, we set a target that standing should not exceed 20 minutes and that peak capacity should meet demand. The recently let First Capital Connect and South Western Trains franchises contain commitments to increase capacity. We recognise that demand for rail has increased markedly in the past decade and this summer, for the first time, the Government will publish a fully funded strategy to buy extra capacity where it is most needed.

Mark Lancaster: May I associate myself with the Minister's opening comments?
	Given that the cost of a season ticket from Milton Keynes and Wolverton is £3,440, surely commuters can expect to get a seat—something that cannot be guaranteed at the moment. With the rapid expansion of Milton Keynes, they are even less likely to get a seat in future. However, there is one thing that the Minister can do for me. Virgin trains stop to drop off passengers at Milton Keynes during rush hour, but not to pick them up. That is frustrating for commuters, when there are empty seats and it is the last stop before Euston. Please will the Minister look into that matter?

Douglas Alexander: One of the challenges in Milton Keynes is ensuring that there is a sufficient length of platform to accommodate longer trains. I hope that, in the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman associated himself with my earlier comments, he will associate himself with the hard work and campaigning efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey), who for many years has campaigned for that extra investment. There is a fundamental connection between the length of the platforms at Milton Keynes and the length of trains that are able to run, with a consequence for capacity.

David Lepper: Another form of access to seats that I have had complaints about from some of my constituents and my city council relates to the lack of properly functioning toilets on many commuter trains and other trains along the south coast. Is it true that the train companies have no requirement to provide toilets on trains? If so, will the Minister take steps to rectify the matter?

Douglas Alexander: I will certainly ensure that I write directly to my hon. Friend on that question.

Charles Walker: On the subject of standing on trains, our local rail service, One Railway, suffers from extreme overcrowding. We are desperate for more capacity on the service, but one of the problems in providing that capacity is the franchise fee that One Railway pays each year to the Department for Transport, which is £50 million. Will the Secretary of State take a look at that franchise fee to see whether the money would be better invested on new rail infrastructure and longer platforms?

Douglas Alexander: I fear that the hon. Gentleman is labouring under a misapprehension. The premium payments by the franchisees do not go back to the Treasury, but are ring-fenced within the Department for Transport rail budget. It is exactly the kind of premium that he speaks of, as well as the sustained public investment, that accounts for the fact that 4,800 new trains and carriages have been purchased over the past 10 years.

Fiona Mactaggart: Could my right hon. Friend use some of those returns to deal with the situation in relation to First Great Western? It is not just that people cannot get access to a seat; the space that they are expected to stand in is insufficient for a human being. As one of my constituents pointed out to me, under regulation 1/2005 and directive 91/628/EEC, there is a minimum amount of space specified for a pig, a cow or a sheep, but at no point is there a minimum amount of space specified for a person on a train.

Douglas Alexander: I welcome the opportunity to state clearly to the House that the performance of First Great Western over recent weeks has been simply unacceptable. I have made that point not solely to the House, but directly to the management at First Great Western. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris), the Minister with responsibility for rail, has done so too. We have raised concerns on behalf of passengers not simply in Slough, but further west in Bristol. I am glad to say that First Great Western has recently apologised publicly to its passengers. Its challenge is to take the remedial steps necessary to ensure that the new rolling stock, which should already have been available to passengers, is made available. That will have an impact on capacity.

Chris Grayling: Of course, Ministers today have more direct operational involvement in the running of the railways than they did even in the days of British Rail. In the past few weeks, overcrowding has led to passengers fainting on trains; we have seen commuter rebellions and newspaper campaigns about the raw deal that passengers are getting; and last week, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris), and my office received a letter from a lady in Scotland whose daughter had to stand from Kirkcaldy, the Secretary of State's spiritual home, all the way to London—a five-hour journey. The Secretary of State has promised us another White Paper. When will the Government actually start doing something to fulfil some of their promises in their 10-year plan on tackling overcrowding?

Douglas Alexander: The hon. Gentleman is right to acknowledge that there is genuine public concern about capacity. There has been a significant uplift in the number of people using our railways in recent years. He challenges me to name some of the improvements that have already been brought about as a result of investment. Southern Railways' new trains programme represents the biggest single procurement of commuter trains in 40 years, and some 1,700 old slam-door trains have been replaced by 225 new rail vehicles. The west coast main line delivers 12-car suburban services on the southern end of the route and there is scope for growth in future years. For Chiltern, the delivery of the Evergreen 2 allows more trains to operate into Marylebone. Although there is genuine public concern, it is difficult for the Conservative party to be a credible articulator of that concern when it seems to be saying simultaneously that it wants lower fares and taxes and higher investment. That simply does not add up.

Chris Grayling: The Secretary of State is always ready to boast about the amount that he is spending on the railways, as are the Government in other areas of their activities. However, if I were in his position, I would be asking myself why, although I was spending so much money, the situation for many passengers was still so bad. How will he cope with the official forecasts of more than 30 per cent. growth in passenger numbers in the next seven years? If we already have an overcrowding crisis on our railways, where are those passengers going to travel?

Douglas Alexander: As I have made clear, we will announce the additional capacity that we will be able to buy in the summer, which will be in addition to the ongoing programme of investment. It ill-behoves the hon. Gentleman to assert that something must be done while simultaneously asserting that fares and taxes must be cut. It simply does not add up for a principal party of opposition that is trying credibly to associate itself with genuine public concern to be willing to talk about the ends, but be unwilling to commit the means.

Albert Owen: Although frequency and punctuality on the north Wales coast have improved considerably, there is still pressure on seat capacity. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposal of Virgin Trains to introduce five-car trains to replace larger nine-car trains in 2008 will compound that problem? There is already sufficient capacity to fill the nine cars. Will he assure me that the franchise will provide a full service west of Chester—from Holyhead to London—and that that service will use the prime trains?

Douglas Alexander: There is a misapprehension that franchising agreements prohibit franchisees from adding capacity to services, or putting in place additional services. There are choices for the franchisee to make. In many cases, franchisees want to put in place additional capacity because that generates further revenue for the railways. I know that there is concern in north-west Wales. I have held discussions with colleagues from Wrexham on the matter, and I will certainly consider the points that my hon. Friend makes.

Paul Rowen: First Great Western's advice to passengers who feel unsafe on crowded trains is that they should get off. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris), has advised us that there is no legal limit on the number of people who can travel on a train. When Labour came to power, one of its first actions was to legislate about the overcrowding of animals on trains, including chickens. Is it not time that the rights of commuters were dealt with in the same way as those of chickens?

Douglas Alexander: I fear that the hon. Gentleman has evidenced the risk involved in writing down a question prior to discussions in the Chamber. I reiterate that we recognise that there is a genuine challenge facing not only the Government, but the whole country, as a consequence of the sustained economic growth that we have experienced over the past decade and the chronic under-investment that was witnessed on the railways over many decades. There are two sources of funding available to address the capacity challenges that we face. In terms of public resources, there is the contribution from the fare payer and the contribution from the taxpayer. It is necessary to find the appropriate balance. In recent years, the net contribution from the taxpayer increased significantly, but we will continue to address the matter and we will bring forward further proposals this summer.

Car Pools

Phyllis Starkey: What plans he has to introduce high-occupancy vehicle car-pool lanes.

Stephen Ladyman: The previous Secretary of State for Transport announced in December 2004 and March 2006 plans to trial high-occupancy vehicle lanes on the M1, junctions 7 to 10, and at the junction between the M606 and the M62 respectively. We will be monitoring the success of the trials carefully. HOV lanes introduced by local authorities in the UK and highways authorities in other countries have been shown to work well.

Phyllis Starkey: May I thank the Minister for that answer? When I was on holiday in California in the summer, I saw for myself how effective car-pool lanes on freeways were in encouraging people to share cars at peak times, instead of sitting in a queue, one to a car. Will he seriously consider the idea of local authorities in urban areas introducing bus lanes that could double up as lanes for car-pool cars? That might be an effective way of reducing congestion at peak commuting times.

Stephen Ladyman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support of high-occupancy vehicle lanes. She is absolutely right to say that they work well in the United States, as they do in other countries, too. We have already done some experiments; local authorities in Leeds and South Gloucestershire have introduced HOV lanes on local roads, in conjunction with a package of other measures, and the lanes have been shown to reduce journey times for commuters significantly. Her idea about the possibility of bus and high-occupancy vehicle lanes is a positive one, and I will make sure that local authorities consider it.

Sharon Hodgson: Are there any plans to give local authorities greater powers to support car-pool schemes, as that would go a long way towards giving people the chance to use high-occupancy vehicle lanes?

Stephen Ladyman: Local authorities already have such powers. In fact, we have just published a traffic advisory leaflet, which explains to them their powers and what they can do, and which sets out evidence gained from schemes in other areas, showing how successful they have been. If my hon. Friend has any concerns about her local authority and wants to discuss those concerns with me, I would be happy to have a meeting with her.

Road Congestion

Meg Hillier: How much funding he has allocated to local authorities for the development of innovative solutions to road congestion for 2006-07.

Stephen Ladyman: Five million pounds has been earmarked in 2006-07, as part of a package of more than £14.5 million, to support initial scheme development by local transport authorities for the transport innovation fund. The support available for TIF schemes to tackle congestion will increase to £200 million per annum from 2008-09.

Meg Hillier: I welcome that information from my hon. Friend. When congestion charging was introduced in London, there were many arguments about the economic and environmental impacts of tackling congestion. Will my hon. Friend assure me that long-term environmental impacts will be a key part of the Department for Transport's assessment of any forthcoming schemes? It is easy to pay lip service to environmental issues, but backing schemes that are not universally popular is another matter.

Stephen Ladyman: Of course the environment must be an important part of the issues that a local authority takes into consideration. The primary function of demand management schemes, including the congestion charge, is to control congestion, but within those schemes there are many opportunities to improve the environment for local communities. In London, the Mayor is taking those considerations forward, and other local authorities considering demand management schemes will doubtless also take them into account.

John Redwood: Does the Minister accept that much congestion is created at junctions that have inadequate capacity, and at points where roads cross railway lines? Will he target the money on improving junctions, so that traffic can flow better, as that will bring green benefits, and benefits for business and people trying to get to work and school?

Stephen Ladyman: It is for the local authorities that apply for the money to consider how best they can improve congestion on their local roads. The type of work that the right hon. Gentleman mentions will, no doubt, be one of the options that they will consider, but they have to take into account not only options for building, but demand management, because frankly we cannot continue to build our way out of the problems caused by congestion. They will have to bring an open-minded attitude to those serious issues, which is far more than can be said about the taskforce that the right hon. Gentleman leads on behalf of his party. Its big idea for dealing with the problem is to introduce double-decker motorways that would cost £35 billion—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Graham Stringer: Manchester airport has estimated that the increase in air passenger duty announced at the end of last year will raise £90 million from that airport alone. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that the money should be put into public transport and environmental schemes, but would it not make more sense to use it to extend the tram system in Greater Manchester, rather than forcing on the people of Manchester a regressive and unwanted road pricing scheme?

Stephen Ladyman: We have just announced support for the extension of the transport system in Manchester, so my hon. Friend knows that we are indeed investing in the city's public transport system. The fact of the matter is that we must get realistic about congestion. Thanks to the Government and 10 years of economic growth, the number of vehicles on our roads has increased from 26 million to 33 million. In a small island, we cannot continue to build our way out of the problem. Yes, investment in public transport is part of the answer, but I am afraid that in Manchester, just as in every other city in the country, we have to get realistic about demand management, too.

Owen Paterson: When the Minister comes to allocate funds to those local authorities, what advice will he give them on levying congestion charges on the 2.2 million vehicles that are not registered or taxed?

Stephen Ladyman: That is one of the key problems that we must identify if we are to move forward. Demand management solutions will indeed help us to identify vehicles that are not taxed, so one of the added benefits of road pricing is the fact that there will be no more people driving around without tax or insurance.

Rail Fares

Clive Efford: For what reasons Southeastern Trains has removed zone 3 from its ticket prices on north Kent services; and if he will make a statement.

Tom Harris: I reassure my hon. Friend that Southeastern has not removed zone 3 from its ticket prices on north Kent services. However, may I commend him on identifying that omission and bringing it to my attention? I am informed that the company made an error in implementing London zonal fares, which affected zone 3, and I can confirm that that error has now been corrected.

Clive Efford: I am sorry that I have had to approach my hon. Friend to receive anything close to an apology for the error. When my constituents wrote to Southeastern, the company chose to ignore the complaint in its reply, blaming the Government for a 66 per cent. increase in fares. It is several weeks since I pointed out the error, so will my hon. Friend ensure that Southeastern publicise it and give people who can prove that they were overcharged and who paid an excessive fare the opportunity to obtain a refund?

Tom Harris: I well understand my hon. Friend's concern. It is for Southeastern to decide whether or not to publicise any new arrangements, but I have been told that it is working on a process to refund season ticket holders who have overpaid.

David Evennett: Is the Minister aware of the anger among commuters in my constituency, both at the large fare increase on north Kent services, and at the unreliable service that they receive? Surely, increased ticket prices far above inflation and train delays are not the way to encourage more people to use the service.

Tom Harris: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that regulated fares have increased more on Southeastern than on most other franchises, at RPI plus 3 per cent. compared with RPI plus 1 per cent. for other train operating companies. Those rises can be justified by the significant investment that has taken place on Southeastern in recent years, and that investment will continue. It should be noted that over the past three years, Southeastern's performance has increased by 9.3 per cent., as it has achieved a public performance measure of 88.8 per cent.

Bus Fares

Anthony D Wright: How many pensioners and disabled people used free fares on off-peak local bus travel in the last 12 months.

Gillian Merron: The Government introduced the free off-peak local bus travel concession for some 11 million older and disabled people in England on 1 April 2006. Since then, bus patronage has increased nationally by about 3 per cent. Further information will be published in the autumn.

Anthony D Wright: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. My constituents in Great Yarmouth are certainly pleased with the Government's response, and look forward to the national travel concession next year. However, there are two problems. First, the scheme has been so successful that many fare-paying passengers cannot get on the buses and, secondly, in rural areas, there is a lack of public services, so pensioners cannot take advantage of the benefits offered by the Government. Can the Minister give us any news that will provide a boost both for pensioners in those areas and for fare-paying passengers?

Gillian Merron: I am grateful for the work that my hon. Friend has done to secure the benefits of concessionary travel arrangements for his constituency, and I am delighted to hear of the success of Government policy in Great Yarmouth, as has been the case across the country. I am aware that there have been concerns about the level of service provided by First Group in the area, and I urge the local authority and First Group to get together to address the issues. More broadly, we recently announced proposals to improve bus services across the country, which include improved partnerships between local authorities and bus operators to deal with the kind of matters that my hon. Friend—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady's answer should not be a speech.

Jeremy Hunt: Given that the settlement for free local bus travel forced many councils to increase council tax, causing significant hardship to many older and disabled people, what reassurances can the Minister give regarding the settlement for free national bus travel so that the Government are not accused of giving with one hand and taking away with the other?

Gillian Merron: That is not a situation that I recognise. After the introduction of the new national bus concession in 2008, the Government will be spending about £1 billion a year on concessionary travel for older and disabled people. Our commitment is to keep that going and extend it nationally, and I hope the hon. Gentleman's party will support us in that.

Judy Mallaber: May I suggest to my hon. Friend that she encourage other authorities to follow the example of Derbyshire county council, which extended its Gold Card discount and transport scheme to cover a number of community transport schemes, so that people with mobility problems—elderly people and disabled people—can go on the dial-a-bus schemes to the local shops or travel to other towns free?

Gillian Merron: I am happy to endorse that local arrangement, which I know my hon. Friend strongly supports. Local authorities have the discretion to vary their concessionary fares scheme and extend it to community transport in the way that she describes.

Peter Bone: Pensioners in Rushden who want to go to Wellingborough do not get free travel. The Minister speaks of free national travel. When will that be brought in, and will it be subsidised by council tax payers or out of general taxation?

Gillian Merron: The answer is April 2008.

David Clelland: The Minister will be aware that one area with the highest take-up of concessionary fares is Tyne and Wear. She will also know that it cost the passenger transport executive £5.4 million to introduce the scheme last year, and it will cost a further £2.6 million to continue the scheme over the next financial year. Are there any measures that can be brought in to compensate Tyne and Wear PTE for that £8 million loss, so that when the national scheme is rolled out we will start from a level playing field?

Gillian Merron: The Department for Communities and Local Government and my Department continue to work on the matter. We are considering a number of options for distributing the existing funding. I have spoken to my hon. Friend and others about the matter. It is in the interest of us all to ensure that local authorities are adequately funded for providing the statutory concession. As I said, the Government will spend about £1 billion a year on concessionary travel from April 2008.

Kevan Jones: Although many pensioners in my constituency welcome access to free travel, will my hon. Friend join me in condemning Go North East, which is cynically stripping out bus routes from many of the outlying villages in my constituency and the neighbouring constituency of City of Durham, which is leaving pensioners isolated? Although they have a free pass, they cannot use it because there is no bus service.

Gillian Merron: Local provision is a matter for bus operators and local authorities, and I hope my hon. Friend will contribute to the process. Our document, "Putting Passengers First", will enable local areas to have a far greater say to ensure that his constituents are much better served by bus services.

Stephen Hepburn: As has been said, the concessionary travel scheme has been a great success in Tyne and Wear, with an increase in travel through it of about 20 per cent. Will the Minister re-examine the funding formula, which has been alluded to and which can only be described as absolutely barmy? It is based on the number of over-60-year-olds in the population, which means that the Scilly Isles, with no buses at all, gets cash, while places such as Tyne and Wear are obliged to withdraw services and scrap the concessionary scheme for young people to make sure that the scheme works?

Gillian Merron: I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend's considered view of the funding scheme. I should say that funding is provided by the formula grant, which is in line with the wishes of central and local government. As I said, we are considering several options for distributing the existing funding. I am looking forward to my own visit to the north-east to see bus services there.

Rail Travel

Christine Russell: What his estimate is of the level of rail travel undertaken in the latest year for which figures are available.

Douglas Alexander: More than 1 billion rail journeys were made during 2005-06—the most since 1961. That represents a total distance travelled of more than 43 million km during the same period.

Christine Russell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I can tell him that the number of rail passengers travelling from Chester to Euston has increased by more than 30 per cent. in the past year. Contrary to what Opposition Members may think, that is surely a sign of success as a result of local economic prosperity and improvements to the west coast main line. Is it not time to turn to considering improvements to the facilities at stations to take account of that increased rail usage? For instance, at my local station—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Douglas Alexander: My hon. Friend is right to acknowledge that, having addressed many of the safety concerns as regards rail services that were uppermost in many people's minds a few years ago, as we continue to address the challenge of performance and reliability, capacity is undoubtedly one of the dominating challenges that we face now and in the years ahead. The straightforward answer to that is to ensure that there is sustained investment. Many people forget that back in the days of British Rail there was annual budgeting, whereas we are now looking at year-on-year budgeting, which can make a significant contribution. Part of the reason for the improvement in passenger numbers on the west coast main line is the record levels of investment going into that service, with the consequence that there have also been improvements in performance and reliability.

Anne Main: Given that the Government accepted a bid from First Capital Connect that meant fewer passengers and increased fares, our only hope is to get increased capacity through the Thameslink project. Will we have an early funding decision on that to help my constituents who want to travel?

Douglas Alexander: Capacity will be increased on the First Capital Connect route between Bedford and Brighton to ensure all eight-car running in the course of the franchise. The decision that the hon. Lady asks about, along with several others, will be considered in the context of the high level output specification next summer.

Clive Betts: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that in recent years there have been new trains and an increased frequency of service on the Cross Country franchise. However, the problem is that the trains are shorter than they used to be, and there is a serious problem of lack of capacity and overcrowding, particularly on the central part of the route between Birmingham and Leeds. Now that that service is out for refranchising, will he give an assurance that he will consider that particular problem when deciding who the new service operator should be?

Douglas Alexander: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that in all our franchise negotiations capacity is one of the considerations uppermost in our minds. He speaks of Leeds. That is a timely reminder that this is not merely a challenge for the south-east of England. As the Eddington report indicated, we are now dealing with circumstances whereby we have economic growth in several cities, and we therefore need to address the challenge not only in the south-east but in cities throughout the country.

Graham Brady: Does the Secretary of State agree that more use of the services could be achieved if the timetable were more conducive? In particular, I draw his attention to the fact that there are two services an hour in each direction from Euston to Stockport, but only one on the line from Chester to Stockport, which passes through Altrincham and which is not timetabled in a way that matches with any of the mainline services on the west coast main line. Will he encourage a more sensible use of timetables to ensure that connecting services match up?

Douglas Alexander: Appropriate timetabling changes can certainly make significant contributions to performance and service reliability, but it might help the hon. Gentleman if he consulted his Front-Bench spokesman on these matters. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) recently stated:
	"I do not think it is the role of Ministers to decide detailed service configurations."—[ Official Report, 30 November 2006; Vol. 453, c. 1290.]

Aviation Emissions

Laura Moffatt: What steps he is taking to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from aviation.

Gillian Merron: We welcome the European Union's recent announcement on aviation's inclusion in the EU emission trading scheme in 2011 and 2012. We have led the debate in Europe on the issue and will continue to work on the detail of the proposal, including an earlier introduction.

Laura Moffatt: It would be wrong to assume that people who derive their income from and contribute to the general economic well-being of an area such as Crawley are not concerned about aviation pollution. What more can we do collectively to alert people to the continuing problems with aviation? Although they are currently small, they are increasing. What more can communities do to assist in the battle to reduce global warming?

Gillian Merron: My hon. Friend is an effective representative of her constituents, who have a wide range of interests in Gatwick airport. The Government are fully committed to ensuring that aviation meets its environmental costs. In addition to the EU emissions trading scheme, seeking reform of the Chicago convention to recognise global environmental considerations, doubling air passenger duty and pursuing other measures such as improving aviation working practices, research and development and promoting voluntary action by individuals will all contribute.

Stephen Crabb: Does the Under-Secretary agree that one of the ways in which she can limit carbon emissions from aviation is to encourage civil servants to fly less? If so, will she speak to her colleagues at the Treasury? Thanks to the merger and subsequent centralisation of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs functions, it has managed in the space of only a year to double the number of civil servants who take domestic flights so that, on any given day, more than 50 HMRC managers travel through regional airports in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland.

Gillian Merron: The Prime Minister took a lead in that. All official and ministerial air travel is offset and people fly only when it is necessary in the course of their work.

Rail Capacity

Julie Morgan: If he will take steps to increase capacity on the railways.

Tom Harris: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the Department is already taking steps to increase the capacity of the railways through the franchising process, the high level output specification and the longer-term strategy framework for the network to be published in the summer.

Julie Morgan: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the latest national passenger survey, which shows that nearly 40 per cent.—6 per cent. more than previously—of travellers on First Great Western are dissatisfied with the amount of room available for passengers to sit or stand. Does not that make the case for increasing capacity on the railway rather than having expensive new refits of first class compartments?

Tom Harris: I fully accept that the performance of First Great Western in the past few weeks has unfortunately overshadowed the good news in the rest of the rail network, especially in the light of the passenger survey to which my hon. Friend referred. It showed that customer satisfaction is 81 per cent. nationally. I expect First Great Western to meet its franchise commitments and provide a significantly improved service to passengers in the next few weeks.

Adam Price: The removal of First Great Western's 5.18 service to Swansea has had a knock-on effect on other commuter services in south Wales. Recently, 340 people in Cardiff boarded a Cardiff to Swansea train which had only 186 seats. Since the last time the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) asked the same question, things have got worse. When will they get better?

Tom Harris: The removal of the 17.18 service from Cardiff to Swansea was a commercial decision that First Great Western took and the Department has no authority to reverse it. Of course, we will keep the position under review with Arriva Trains Wales and First Great Western.

Geraldine Smith: I congratulate the Government on the improvements on the west coast main line between Lancaster and London. They have made journeys much better. We must now consider capacity, especially, in my area, on trains between Lancaster and Morecambe, and improve the frequency of the trains by improving the track. What funding is available for such improvements?

Tom Harris: I agree with my hon. Friend. Let me repeat that the high level output specification, which the Government will publish in the summer, will specify the capacity that we wish to buy from the rail industry in 2009 to 2014. We will also state the funds available for that.

London Underground

Andrew Love: How much his Department has allocated to London Underground in support of the public-private partnership in each year up to 2009-10.

Gillian Merron: The three PPP agreements were signed by April 2003. Since then, the Department has agreed £9.5 billion grant for London Underground up to 2009-10.

Andrew Love: Sadly, my constituency does not lie on the London Underground system. Perhaps my hon. Friend could do something about that. The Piccadilly line runs close by, however, and there have been real problems on that line because of a lack of investment over many years that has led to delays and difficulties for passengers. What reassurance can my hon. Friend give to the House that the PPP will lead to the investment needed to improve the service for my constituents?

Gillian Merron: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns for his constituents, including the fact that there is no underground station in his constituency. However, the Piccadilly line is now performing at a level above the contract specifications and, importantly for my hon. Friend's constituents, it is due for a major upgrade in 2014, when new signals and trains will reduce average journey times by a fifth and increase passenger capacity by 25 per cent.

Justine Greening: Will the Minister outline how much of the £9.5 billion will be spent on the District line, which is the only tube line serving my constituents? To my knowledge, there is no substantial investment planned for it until 2013.

Gillian Merron: I shall be happy to write to the hon. Lady about that. I can tell her, however, that refurbished trains are now being provided for the District line, that new trains will be delivered between 2013 and 2015, and that a new signalling system will be in place by March 2018. I hope that she will welcome those improvements.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend cast a leery eye over the value for money of these private finance initiatives? The underground is a very old system and it needs a lot of cash. The Government are providing the cash, but are we quite sure that the passengers are getting the benefit?

Gillian Merron: I look to London Underground and its PPP partners to work together to address any areas of poor performance. We know that there have been a number of successes, but we are also aware that performance needs to be improved, and I can assure my hon. Friend that I am extremely mindful of that.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

The Minister of State was asked—

Juries

Gordon Marsden: What assessment her Department has made of the age and gender balance of juries in Lancashire.

Bridget Prentice: My Department does not collect data on the age and gender composition of juries for monitoring purposes. Random selection from the electoral register should mean that the composition of juries is broadly representative of the general population.

Gordon Marsden: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does she, however, share my concern that many younger people might be being disadvantaged in this respect, perhaps by virtue of the fact that they move more frequently or are not on the electoral register? What is her Department doing in general terms to increase the awareness and involvement of young people in the jury system, perhaps in relation to citizenship awareness in schools and other projects of that nature?

Bridget Prentice: My hon. Friend makes an important point in marrying the random selection of juries and registration on the electoral register—a subject that is close to my heart. He will know that my Department has done a great deal of work to encourage electoral registration, as has the Electoral Commission. However, young people are more likely to move more frequently than others. When the Department publishes its report on diversity in the jury system in England and Wales shortly, I hope that we can examine that aspect of the report in more detail.

Nigel Evans: May I reassure the Minister that, in the almost 15 years that I have been a Member of Parliament representing a Lancashire constituency, I have not received one letter of complaint from anyone who felt that they were being denied the opportunity to serve on a jury? Will she give the House an assurance that the random nature of jury selection will remain, and that it will not be artificially skewed one way or another?

Bridget Prentice: I can absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that the random nature of jury selection will remain. As he will know, we have now extended the jury pool, which means that Members of Parliament should also now have the opportunity to serve on juries.

Lindsay Hoyle: My hon. Friend will be aware that this is about getting the right balance, whether in regard to gender or age. Will she also ensure that that same balance is struck in regard to the selection of magistrates?

Bridget Prentice: My hon. Friend makes an important point. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs, whose policy area covers magistrates, is aware of the diversity needed in the magistrates court, as is the Magistrates Association, of which I have been a member for some time.

Carter Review

Adam Holloway: What representations she has received from solicitors and barristers following publication of the conclusions of the Carter review.

Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman asks about responses to the Carter review published in July 2006. We had 1,595 responses from solicitors and 469 from barristers, as well as much input from the various meetings that I had around the country, which were mostly attended by practitioners.

Adam Holloway: Quite a few legal aid practitioners in my constituency have written to me saying that they are worried about the Government's proposals, which they have called "cost-cutting and damaging". Those are experienced people who have been doing such work for a long time. Is the Minister saying that their assessment of the likely effect of the proposals is wrong, or is she suggesting that they are merely protecting their fee income?

Vera Baird: Clearly, the legal aid fund is not underfunded; it is the best funded in the world by a significant margin. When we move, as we will in October 2007, to fixed fees for crime—which perhaps the hon. Gentleman is talking about—we would expect efficiencies to be driven so that, ultimately, solicitors will be more profitably able than now to do their business and to serve more people. There will be challenges between then and now, and I understand that those will be seriously problematic for some solicitors. I hope that we can support them to overcome those, as there is a good future for those who can do so.

Ian Lucas: As we are discussing fee income, I should perhaps mention that I am a solicitor. If at all possible, will my hon. and learned Friend consider the question of experts' fees? I have tabled some questions on the issue, and legal aid expenditure on experts' fees has increased far more quickly than expenditure on solicitors' and barristers' fees over the past five years. Will she get a detailed breakdown of that expenditure, and take steps to restrict such expenditure?

Vera Baird: My hon. Friend has tabled such questions, and he is right about those increases. We are considering experts' fees. If I can supply the information that he seeks, I shall do so.

Alan Beith: Will the Minister consider the evidence that the Constitutional Affairs Committee is hearing week by week, from not just barristers and solicitors but judges and others, including representations from the president of the family division, about the likely impact on the availability of family law practitioners? Is she ready to make alterations to the timing and content of the proposals in the light of some of that evidence?

Vera Baird: I am, of course, taking note of the evidence, and looking forward to an opportunity to deal with it, either personally or through the Lord Chancellor, in due course. We do, of course, listen carefully to what the president of the family division says. He is talking about deferring, but there is urgency none the less to introduce such fees. It was notable that Lord Justice Thomas was strongly in favour of our proposals, so perhaps a balanced approach was taken.

Alan Whitehead: Has my hon. and learned Friend specifically considered whether advice deserts might emerge following the introduction of scale fees and contracts in relation to family law? Is she reviewing that possibility as a result of the change in practice this autumn?

Vera Baird: No, I would not expect the emergence of any advice desert; I would prefer to call them historically bare-ish patches, which are now being pretty well watered with Legal Services Commission money and are basking in the mild sunshine of the Department for Constitutional Affairs, with green shoots coming through, if not bushes and trees. But enough of that metaphor. We are re-consulting on the levels of family fees, and I hope and expect that we will publish that re-consultation soon. I hope that that will ensure that family practitioners benefit from the efficiencies that all the Carter reforms will drive, and that the service given to the public will be improved.

Henry Bellingham: The expression "parallel universes" comes to mind. Is the Minister aware that in a recent survey 99 per cent. of civil legal aid solicitors said that fixed fees would make their work unviable, while a staggering 82 per cent. of family lawyers said that they might withdraw completely from legal aid work? Surely that is why dozens of charities ranging from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and Mind to Shelter and the Refugee Council have warned that the plans will leave vulnerable people unrepresented. When it comes to protecting such people and standing up for them, who should we listen to, Ministers who appear ever more complacent or world-class charities which spend all their lives helping the vulnerable?

Vera Baird: There are Ministers here who spend their lifetimes helping the vulnerable in cases of all kinds.
	The opportunities that the proposals offer the not-for-profit and for-profit sectors are extremely significant. I entirely accept that the transition is not easy for all people to see their way through, but I am sure that when it comes it will be advantageous and more vulnerable people will be better advised than they are now.

Keith Vaz: The effect of the Carter proposals is that there will be fewer suppliers. Whether there are patches or deserts, the fact remains that there will be less access to justice. The Law Society and the Bar Council have made representations, and hundreds of Members of Parliament have signed an early-day motion opposing this measure. Will the Minister listen to what is being said by all concerned, and delay implementation of these ridiculous reforms?

Vera Baird: I am not sure what ridiculous reforms are being referred to, but if there are any ridiculous reforms to be deferred I will defer ridiculous reforms. What I do not accept is that fewer firms will mean less supply. On the contrary, if that is the outcome in some areas it will be because the volume of fixed-fees cases means that more people are being better represented. Fewer supplies do not necessarily mean poorer supply, although the effects will vary from area to area. As I have said repeatedly, we will consult locally in order to reach the right conclusion for the local market and—this is overwhelmingly important—for local people.

Simon Hughes: The Minister will know that since the Government announced their response to the Carter reforms and since the two debates in Westminster Hall in which the Minister spoke—after which her words were scrutinised very carefully—there has been no less concern among both the voluntary sector and the professionals that the new reforms will reduce access to justice in rural and urban Britain alike. Given the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the fact that a Select Committee is examining the evidence now, will the Minister at least do the public and their representatives the courtesy of saying that she will not implement anything until the Select Committee has reported and the House has had a chance to debate its report?

Vera Baird: It is not the case that there is "no less concern" than there was. Universally—and that includes the early-day motion that the hon. Gentleman signed—the changes that we have made since Carter have been welcomed. The early-day motion welcomes the changes, and they are good in pace-of-change terms. We have waited to make cuts, and we are not making cuts that were expected to be made very soon under the Carter proposals. I do not know when the Constitutional Affairs Committee will report, but the first fixed fees come into force in October 2007 and I imagine that it will report before that.

Voting Age

Jo Swinson: What representations she has received on lowering the voting age in the last six months.

Bridget Prentice: I have received nine letters about the issue in the last six months. The matter has been raised with me by students and young people on an informal basis during engagements and visits that I have undertaken during that time.

Jo Swinson: In the Scottish parliamentary elections in May, 130,000 people in Scotland will be old enough to marry, to join the Army and even to become company directors, but will be deemed too young to be given a vote on who should govern them. When will the Minister recommend action to correct that injustice and give Scotland's young people a voice at the ballot box?

Bridget Prentice: This issue divides us in a cross-party sense. I have a good deal of sympathy with the hon. Lady's argument for voting rights at 16, but I know that many Members feel very differently about it.
	This morning I was at Greenford high school in Ealing discussing this very topic with students on their citizens' jury. They were divided 50:50 on it. I think that before we could implement such a measure we would need more than a 50 per cent. enthusiasm rate from the people to whom we would be extending the franchise.

Andrew MacKinlay: My hon. Friend says that she is sympathetic, but what has happened to the old-fashioned virtue of leadership? Why does she not put forward a radical idea for once and say, "We will legislate"—as the Isle of Man did in advance of its general election, at which people voted at 16 years of age? The last time I flew over the Isle of Man it was still there; it had not sunk, and it has a better democracy than we have. We should be ashamed of ourselves.

Bridget Prentice: I am interested to hear my hon. Friend, who I always think of as one of the fathers of democracy in this House, suggest that the Isle of Man's democracy is better than ours. I am disappointed that he takes that view. However, we have to listen to all views, and I have conducted surveys in my constituency—I spoke about the young people I met this morning—and I have to say to my hon. Friend that young people are not as enthusiastic as he or I might be about this subject. We must have further discussions with them before we move forward. My hon. Friend talks about leadership, and in that context we should also talk about the fragility of democracy and the importance of democracy in this country. One way to ensure that we continue to have a proper debate is by ensuring that the democracy of the country is upheld.

Edward Leigh: There is not much point in lowering the voting age unless we can convince young people who have already reached the age of 18 to vote. Why does the Minister think that there is massive apathy among young people? Is it because young people believe that the main political parties are driven by focus groups and spin, rather than principle?

Bridget Prentice: I speak to young people throughout the country—and to others about the views of young people—and the idea that young people are apathetic about politics is nonsense. They take a keen interest in many of the important political issues of the day. They might not, however, like some of what they see on television with regard to how the political process works, and I have sympathy with them on that. Members of this House must work very hard in engaging with young people on the issues that are important to them and in finding ways in which they can express their opinions and get them heard. In my constituency, the London borough of Lewisham has an elected young mayor who has a budget from the council which is used to involve young people between the ages of 11 and 17 in the electoral process. We might want to extend that example to elsewhere in the country.

Jim Devine: Some 15 months ago, my local radio station carried out an opinion poll on this issue, and more than 90 per cent. of those who responded were in favour of reducing the voting age. Would doing that not make a major contribution not only to citizenship, but to Britishness?

Bridget Prentice: It is important that we have a debate on this matter. Having talked to young people around the country, I can say that they are particularly keen on the citizenship classes that now take place in schools thanks to this Government, and they feel that that is one of the ways in which they can develop their own political ideas. There are a variety of ways in which we can continue to involve young people in the political process both locally and nationally, but I am sure that the debate on whether we reduce the voting age to 16 will continue for some time to come.

Oliver Heald: Does the Minister not agree that there is a wider dimension to this issue, particularly at a time when the Government are suggesting raising the school leaving age to 18, which is to do with what adulthood really means? As she knows, some of those who suggest that the voting age should be 16 also suggest that buying tobacco and alcohol, and even starring in a porn film, should be possible at the age of 16. Does she not agree that all the evidence—and we should look at the evidence—from the Isle of Man shows that only half the young people there bothered to register to vote, and that the Electoral Commission seems to suggest in its report that overall turnout at elections would fall if we made this change?

Bridget Prentice: The hon. Gentleman makes some valid points about the issues associated with reducing the voting age to 16, such as whether young people would participate, but I do not accept that reducing the voting age to 16 would automatically mean that a much smaller number of people would take part in elections; in fact, it might be a way to get young people further engaged. The Electoral Administration Act 2006 reduced the candidacy age from 21 to 18, and we can look to that example to see whether we can properly involve more young people in the democratic process by electing them at local—and, indeed, parliamentary —level.

David Kelly

Norman Baker: If she will make a statement on the actions of the Oxfordshire coroner in August 2003 in respect of the death of David Kelly.

Harriet Harman: The Oxfordshire coroner briefly resumed the inquest into the death of Dr. David Kelly on 14 August 2003 to admit post mortem evidence. He then adjourned the inquest, in accordance with the provisions of section 17(a) of the Coroners Act 1988, having been informed by the Lord Chancellor that Dr. Kelly's death was likely to be adequately investigated by the Hutton inquiry.

Norman Baker: I thank the Minister for her reply. She will know my view that the coroner acted in a most peculiar way and contrary to the 1988 Act in resuming the inquiry after Lord Hutton had been appointed. In a letter that I received from Lord Hutton last week, he tells me that he had "no knowledge" of the inquest being reconvened, and no knowledge of the meeting with her officials, which she was aware of, that took place at the Oxfordshire coroner's request, in August 2003. Is this not an extraordinary situation, and does the Minister not agree that it would be helpful if the Oxfordshire coroner agreed to a meeting with the Minister and me, at which we could discuss these matters in more detail? It is clear that there are a great many loose ends.

Harriet Harman: I do not agree that the coroner acted in a most peculiar way. I have looked into this issue with great care and in great detail, and I do not think it necessarily odd that Lord Hutton had no knowledge of, or information about, the meeting that the coroner held with officials from the Department for Constitutional Affairs. I know that the hon. Gentleman remains suspicious and thinks that something underhand has gone on regarding the meeting between the Oxfordshire coroner and officials from the Lord Chancellor's Department, but I do not think that that is the case. I have so far been unable to reassure the hon. Gentleman through very detailed letters and parliamentary answers, but perhaps he should meet the officials who were involved in that meeting, who I am sure can reassure him of its propriety. Obviously, I cannot offer a meeting with the Oxfordshire coroner, who is an independent judicial official.

Casino Advisory Panel

Tessa Jowell: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the recommendations of the independent casino advisory panel. The panel has today published its report, and I would like to thank Professor Crow and his colleagues for their work. Before I turn to the recommendations, I would like to remind the House of the context in which we are allowing these new types of casinos.
	Gambling is on the increase. People want to gamble, and technology allows many new forms of gambling. Existing regulation is inadequate and leaves people exposed to risk, so, through the Gambling Act 2005, we have placed the protection of children and other vulnerable people at the heart of gambling regulation for the first time. Yet if I believed everything that I read in the newspapers about that Act, I would never have introduced it. So let me be very clear: Las Vegas is not coming to Great Britain. British casinos will be subject to new controls, which will be the strictest in the world. For example, Las Vegas-style tricks of the trade will not be allowed. There will be no free alcohol to induce more gambling, and no pumped oxygen to keep players awake —[Interruption.] I do not know whether you are considering providing it for Conservative Members, Mr. Speaker.
	It will be a criminal offence to permit a child to enter a casino or the gambling area of a regional casino. All casinos will be required to have staff who are trained to spot the signs of problem gambling and intervene where necessary—if they do not, they risk losing their licence. It was safe in the knowledge of those protections that we took the decision, in response to demand from local authorities, to allow a limited number of new casinos. Some 68 local authorities, representing all the main political parties, subsequently made applications to the panel.
	The Act allows 17 casinos in total: one regional, eight large and eight small. Because the new casinos will be different from those we have seen before, we have listened carefully to the concerns of Members of Parliament and their constituents. We thought that it was right to be cautious. I could probably say this in 50 different languages, but the message would be the same: we cannot and will not even consider allowing further casinos until a proper evaluation over time has been made of the social and economic effects of the 17 casinos —[ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) should be quiet during a statement. Back Benchers have said that they want a statement and they should have the courtesy to allow the statement to be made.

Tessa Jowell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	Such a decision would require a debate and vote in both Houses of Parliament in any case. We have commissioned a group of academics led by Lancaster university to advise on the methodology for that assessment. The baseline study will be undertaken later this year, once Parliament has approved the new areas, so that proper assessment of changes in the pattern of gambling can be made. The assessment process will be in place in good time for the opening of the first new casino.
	The assessment will not be complete until at least three years after the award of the first licence, and it will be in addition to the prevalence studies of patterns of gambling, which we are undertaking every three years from 2007. The benchmark prevalence study is currently under way to establish how many people gamble and what proportion of them have problems with their gambling. The findings will be published this autumn, when the Gambling Act 2005 takes effect. The findings of the next prevalence study will not be published until autumn 2010. I therefore wish to make it crystal clear to the House that those safeguards preclude any consideration of further casinos for the lifetime of this Parliament.
	I am required by the Act to make an order identifying the local authorities where the 17 new casinos should go. So, in October last year I established the casino advisory panel, under Professor Stephen Crow. The primary consideration for the panel throughout has been to ensure that the areas facilitate the best possible test of social impact. Subject to that consideration, I also asked the panel to include areas in need of regeneration, which would benefit—in terms of new jobs—from a new casino, and to ensure that those areas selected are willing to license a new casino.
	The panel has been operating entirely independently of the Government, and I would like to place on the record my appreciation for the rigour and professionalism that Professor Crow and his colleagues have brought to the process. It has been an open and transparent process throughout, and the views of local people have been taken into account at every stage, as the panel has visited different local authorities around the country.
	The panel asked local authorities to include their evidence of local consultation. Local people were invited to participate in the examinations in public that were held in the seven short-listed areas for the regional casino. During the process, a number of areas, including Brent, Canterbury, Dartford, Thurrock and Woking, withdrew their applications to the panel in response to local opinion, which is evidence of the Act working as it should. A number of local authorities, such as Hackney, St. Albans and Slough, have also taken advantage of new powers we put in the Act and resolved not to license any casinos in their area.
	After 16 months of consultation, and having considered all the evidence available, the panel has recommended today that the following authorities should be entitled to issue a small casino premises licence: Bath and North East Somerset, Dumfries and Galloway, East Lindsey, Luton, Scarborough, Swansea, Torbay and Wolverhampton.
	The panel also recommends that the following local authorities should be entitled to issue a large casino premises licence: Great Yarmouth, Kingston-upon-Hull, Leeds, Middlesbrough, Milton Keynes, Newham, Solihull and Southampton. In addition, it recommends that Manchester should be entitled to issue the one regional casino premises licence permitted by the 2005 Act. I congratulate Manchester and the other recommended towns and cities on their success, and I acknowledge the disappointment of those towns and cities that have not been recommended.
	I received a copy of the panel's report just this morning. Because I am conscious of the need to maintain the integrity of the independent process that we have established, it is only fair to all the applicants that I should take the time to consider the report's contents carefully. Moreover, I am also required by the Gambling Act 2005 to consult both Scottish and Welsh Ministers. I am therefore announcing today that, following the consultation with the devolved Administrations, I am minded to return to this House at the earliest opportunity with an order that will enable Parliament to consider the panel's recommendations and to vote on them. The order will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and the debate will be held on the Floor of the House, as agreed with my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip. That means that Parliament, rightly, will determine the outcome of the process.
	In conclusion, I recognise that gambling will always be a sensitive issue, and I understand the reservations that some hon. Members and others have about it, and about casinos. However, I have always sought to ensure that the Government proceed cautiously on this matter, with the strongest possible safeguards in place and on the basis of the best evidence of public protection in the face of what is, undeniably, rising public demand. That is what is we have done.
	Once again, I thank Professor Crow and his panel for the thoroughness of their work, and I commend this statement to the House.

Hugo Swire: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving me advance sight of her statement, and I add my congratulations to Manchester on its success in securing the proposed regional casino. I and my party hope that that will bring the promised regeneration to that great city in the north-west. We also congratulate all the other successful bidding authorities.
	Today's announcement is the latest chapter in the sorry story of this Government's seeming addiction to gambling. No doubt the Chancellor is licking his lips at the prospect of tax revenues on the scale now evident in Australia. The Government's handling of the liberalisation of gambling has been undermined by charges of privileged access and influence for overseas casino operators. As a result, despite today's verdict from the casino advisory panel, many questions remain.
	It has been noted already that Kerzner International, the prominent bidder that met Ministers and wishes to run the casino in the dome, is also the preferred bidder in the successful Manchester bid. Is it the Secretary of State's understanding that Manchester will now be required to undertake a new open competition for the licence? If other operators are not allowed to tender in a fair and open way, questions will remain.
	The Secretary of State's recommendation must come before Parliament and will be subject to a vote in both Houses. When does she intend to come to the House with the final proposals? Can she also guarantee, categorically, that any increase in the number of super-casinos will be subject to a debate and vote in both Chambers?
	Now that the recommendations of the casino advisory panel have been published, the top priority must be to ensure that the pilot scheme is rigorous and independently monitored. The will of Parliament was clear: because of the untested nature of super-casinos in this country, one regional casino should be piloted so that there can be a proper assessment of its social—[ Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It also applies that the spokesman for the Opposition is entitled to be heard. He should not be interrupted—by Ministers or anyone else.

Hugo Swire: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your protection.
	Only today, before the panel's decision was even announced, we read reports that Ministers are already planning to increase the number of super-casinos. Once more, will the Secretary of State categorically deny any plans to increase the numbers?
	Does the right hon. Lady agree with her Ministers that the legislation could lead to an increase in problem gambling? In her statement, she said that the decision to allow a limited number of new casinos was made by the Government in response to demand from local authorities. She is rewriting history, because she knows that it was the Conservative Opposition who argued strongly for a limited pilot after the Government initially envisaged about 40 super-casinos.
	We need to be sure that the pilot is used to assess the impacts on crime, gambling addiction and the surrounding community, as well as to assess the economic benefits. That is what Parliament agreed to—a true pilot scheme, not a sly way of avoiding the issues that need to be investigated—and that is what we must have. Will the Secretary of State commit to a long and open consultation process for laying down those criteria, and will she confirm that the three years to which she alludes will start only once the doors in Manchester are open to the public?
	The Minister with responsibility for gambling, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), said in the House that the numbers will not change unless the Opposition support an increase. I can say categorically that we support a pilot scheme of one regional casino and there should be no change until a proper assessment has been made. So, will the Secretary of State confirm that there will be no back-door increase?
	Finally, the right hon. Lady makes much play of her determination to regulate gambling, yet the evidence proves that, thanks to her decision to leave the door ajar for applications under the Gaming Act 1968, in the past two years alone 90 casinos have been given initial approval, with a further 57 applications outstanding, which means a potential doubling of the number of casinos since the Government have been in power. Was that her intention? Did she anticipate such a rush for licences? Can she assure us that on no account will those casinos be allowed to trade up their licences and, as a result, bring £1 million jackpot machines to towns throughout the country?
	In the 10 years of the Labour Government there has been a rapid rise in the number of people gambling and in the public's access to gambling online, in pubs and, increasingly, in casinos. That is an unprecedented change and the Government will rightly be judged on its consequences on society. The Secretary of State may make statements about Las Vegas not coming to Britain or about oxygen and free drinks, but there will be alcohol and we will see unprecedented gambling in the UK. She claims that no children will be allowed into casinos, yet as she knows, she rejected the call for ID checks on entry.
	As I said, we join in celebrating with Manchester and all the other towns in their success today, but we shall hold the Government to account on the many promises they have given to protect the most vulnerable and those most at risk from their legislation.

Tessa Jowell: I am inclined to believe that the hon. Gentleman must have gone to sleep during my statement, as I could not have dealt more clearly with four of his questions; nor could I have been clearer about the Government's determination to ensure that proper protection is put in place and that tackling problem gambling, which arises from the many increased opportunities for gambling, is one of the central objectives of the new legislation. That will make us the most toughly regulated gambling regime in the world, apart from countries that ban gambling altogether.
	I take two thirds of what the hon. Gentleman said in the vein that he was desperately scrabbling around to find something to say. Of course Manchester will carry out a fair and open competition for the licence. The hon. Gentleman, with the protection of the House, should stop using this situation as an opportunity for smear and innuendo, which is not what we expect of him. Yes, there will be a vote in both Houses on the affirmative resolution, and yes, I have been absolutely clear throughout that any decision in a subsequent Parliament to increase the number of regional or any other casinos would be a vote of both Houses. This is a decision for Parliament and will remain so.
	On the claim that there is no interest in casinos, I recall from memory that 131 local authorities expressed an interest and we had 68 applications, with 27 local authorities submitting applications for the single large regional casino. It is ridiculous to suggest that the Government are somehow foisting the proposal on unwilling local authorities, which are considerably more imaginative and in tune with their local populations than the hon. Gentleman.
	Let me finish by saying that although the hon. Gentleman talks about the consents awarded before the 1968 Gaming Board licences were terminated in April last year, 13 of those applications have already been turned down by the licensing magistrates. At this stage of his Opposition career, the hon. Gentleman should know that licences—some have not even been considered yet—do not inevitably translate into casinos, as it is a long process. Consents depend on the support of the local authority and local people. This has been a period of great change and the people of this country would be at risk without the new Gambling Act 2005, not because of it.

Tony Lloyd: My right hon. Friend will realise that the people of Manchester will be very pleased with the panel's decision and its recognition of the regeneration impact that it will have on jobs in an area—the city of Manchester—that still has massively high unemployment. My constituents will also be grateful for her words today when she made it clear that there will be tight controls in respect of criminality and problem gambling. Can she guarantee that mechanisms will be available to crawl all over the Manchester casino over the next few years so that the public can see that they are getting value for money with jobs and regeneration and we ensure that the social consequences that some people fear simply do not materialise?

Tessa Jowell: I can give my hon. Friend the absolute reassurance that he rightly seeks on behalf of his constituents. Indeed, from a brief reading of Professor Crow's report, it is abundantly clear that the proposal that Manchester submitted very much puts social responsibility, protection of young people and keeping gambling crime-free at the centre of the proposal. I suspect that that is one of the reasons why it was recommended for the licence.

Don Foster: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement and I join her in congratulating Professor Crow and his team on the work that they have done. We should also place on the record the fact that our UK casino industry has an enviable international record for probity—a reputation that we must maintain as the numbers grow. After the increases in gambling opportunities and greater risks of problem gambling through fixed-odds betting terminals, online gambling, TV advertising of gaming, pub poker and now more casinos, does the Secretary of State at least understand why people are beginning to think that her Government are addicted to gambling? In the light of those concerns, will the right hon. Lady at least thank both Opposition parties for watering down her original plans for an unfettered increase in the number of casinos? The House will surely have been surprised by her statement just now that the Government "thought it right to be cautious".
	I am delighted to hear that the Secretary of State has categorically accepted that the new casinos announced today will be thoroughly tested for their ability to aid regeneration while not increasing problem gambling before any further casinos are allowed. However, given that the assessment methodology has not yet been determined, will she agree to provide the House with an opportunity to debate it once she has received recommendations from Lancaster university? The 17 new casinos are meant to be the basis for such assessments, so is she surprised that of the 17 announced today, 11 are in areas that already have casinos—including Greater Manchester with 11?
	On problem gambling, given that we spend £270 million on tackling the problems of alcohol addiction, is not the Secretary of State disappointed that the gambling industry is currently contributing only about £2.5 million to the main body responsible for dealing with the problem? Will she ensure that the new casinos make a fair contribution?
	As the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) has said, the 17 new casinos announced today do not include the extra casinos that may well arise under existing legislation. Will the right hon. Lady confirm that the Gambling Commission approved 68 new licences in the past two years, and that although some have had premises licences refused, that could lead to an extra 40 or 50 casinos on top of today's 17? Are there not even more applications in the pipeline? How does that square with her statement—even if made in 50 different languages—that she will not even consider allowing further casinos until a proper evaluation has been made on the 17 announced today? Why did a ministerial colleague say two years ago:
	"we can say with certainty that there will be no more than 150 casinos"?—[ Official Report, Standing Committee B, 11 January 2005; c. 718.]
	I wonder how many the right hon. Lady thinks there will be.
	No one in the Chamber—I include the Secretary of State in that—wants much needed regeneration in our towns and cities to be based on the creation of huge increases in problem gambling. So, above all, will she give an absolute assurance to the House that she will stand by the answer that she gave only two weeks ago on "Any Questions", when she said:
	"every single bit of change in legislation, if it proves to give rise to harm will be rescinded"?
	Will she give an absolute commitment that there will be no further growth in gambling opportunities until we test out what we already have and are likely to have following today's announcement?

Tessa Jowell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I gave assurances about being able to rescind any change in the gambling legislation that is proven, on the basis of the social and economic impact study or the prevalence study, to give rise to problem gambling. Any such change will be revoked. That is fundamental to the development of the legislation, as he knows; it is not a new concession. I do not want to be harsh on the two Opposition spokesmen, but the person who has really contributed light, balance and intelligence to the debate is the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who chaired the original Joint Committee and now chairs the Responsibility in Gambling Trust, which raises money from the industry to deal with problem gambling.
	We have made it absolutely clear—this is in the legislation—that if the industry does not pay the levy that we have determined, we will make that requirement statutory on the industry. My concern is the way in which the intention of the policy is wilfully misrepresented. That causes—quite rightly—alarm in the country. This is legislation that is designed to protect, that recognises the scale of technological change, and that is in the control of local authorities to implement in the interests of their communities. As a matter of honour, hon. Members ought to reflect that in the terms that they use in partaking in the debate in Parliament.

Joan Humble: While I acknowledge the hard work of the casino advisory panel on this matter, I have concerns about the analysis of Blackpool's case in the document that was produced. Therefore, I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement that an order will be brought before us so that we can have a debate in the Chamber. Will she clarify the length and extent of that debate? Orders are usually debated for only an hour and a half, but the report needs a full and detailed debate, with as many Members as possible taking part. Can she reassure me that, through the usual channels, she will ensure that we have all the time that we need?

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for that. As I said in my statement, I recognise that she and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) will be disappointed that Blackpool was not recommended, despite their powerful campaigning on behalf of their constituents over recent months. I am aware of the importance of allowing ample time for the debate, which will be unusual, so I am quite confident that that will be facilitated through the usual channels.

John Whittingdale: Is the Secretary of State aware of the view expressed by Professor Peter Collins—
	"convenience is the single greatest spur to increase problem gambling"—
	that led the Joint Scrutiny Committee to conclude that a regional casino should not be located
	"in close proximity to residential properties"?
	Is there therefore not a danger that choosing Manchester, rather than a resort destination, is likely to lead to an increase in problem gambling? Does the Secretary of State share my surprise that the report of the advisory panel states:
	"problem gambling is more a town planning consideration rather than one for us"?

Tessa Jowell: I should make it clear that the decision to allocate the regional casino to Manchester is made to the local authority. It will be for the local authority to decide precisely where the location should be. As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd), considerations about risks, problem gambling and keeping gambling crime-free—let us remember what a good reputation this country's gambling industry has, as the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said—will be taken into account when Manchester decides, following a fair and open competition, how to award the licence for the casino. I am aware of the work of Professor Collins, but I also know that the panel will have considered such matters very carefully when making its recommendation.

Janet Anderson: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the disappointment and surprise of many of us that Blackpool has not been included at all, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) indicated. I understand that one of the panel's conclusions was that Blackpool needed more than one casino for regeneration purposes. Does the Secretary of State thus share my astonishment that Blackpool has not been recommended for any licence at all?

Tessa Jowell: I realise that Blackpool is disappointed that it has not been recommended. However, I made it clear throughout the process—before we knew the recommendation—including during a recent sitting of the Select Committee, when I dealt with the matter fully, that we would accept the panel's recommendations and put them to Parliament. As I have outlined, Parliament will have the opportunity to debate my hon. Friend's point.

Malcolm Moss: Those of us who thought that the process of implementing the Gambling Act could not get any worse—I include members of the Scrutiny and Standing Committees in that group—are frankly astonished by today's announcement about the location of the super-casino. The decision of the casino advisory panel flies in the face of not only the main recommendation of the Scrutiny Committee—that such casinos should be resort or destination casinos, such as that proposed by Blackpool—but the Government's main objective for the Act: to protect children and the vulnerable. How can one defend choosing the most deprived and vulnerable area of Manchester to test whether a super-casino that is open 24 hours a day, with free admission, will generate an increase in problem gambling? If, as I expect, the order is rejected by the House, where will the Government go from there?

Tessa Jowell: I take the hon. Gentleman's words as a contribution to the debate that we will have in the next few weeks.

Clive Efford: My right hon. Friend said in her statement that we will have the strictest regime for casinos to be found anywhere. Will she add to that by telling the House who will monitor the performance and activities of the casinos? What sanctions will be available if casinos are found to be breaching any of the codes of conduct?

Tessa Jowell: The Gambling Commission will oversee compliance with the very specific licence conditions, which will reflect the three principles of the gambling legislation. Those principles are protecting children and the vulnerable, keeping gambling crime-free, and ensuring that gambling is kept fair. Breach of any of those conditions can lead to a range of sanctions, some of them criminal sanctions, and can also lead to the operator losing their licence.

John Greenway: Given the residential location of the Manchester casino, does the Secretary of State agree that delivery of the social responsibility programme, which so impressed the casino advisory panel, will be critical if the scheme is to be a success? May I inform her and the House that Manchester city council has already held discussions with the Responsibility in Gambling Trust and GamCare, which we fund? Does she agree that significant contributions to the trust must be made, not just by Manchester, but by all 17 operators of the casinos that she today announced are to be created, subject to the approval of the House, so that we can further our work on public awareness, the education of young people, and research, and so that we can provide a safety net for people who gamble beyond their means?

Tessa Jowell: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. He is right to be reassured by the Manchester submission, and I agree entirely that there is a role for hon. Members in ensuring that the local authorities that have a casinos in their area do their bit to make sure that the contribution to the trust is made.

Gordon Marsden: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the great disappointment and anger felt in Blackpool, now that the town that pushed the longest, had the strongest support, and made the most preparation, in terms both of regeneration possibilities and social responsibilities, has been set aside in the panel's recommendation. Does she understand that concerns are already being expressed about inconsistencies in the report, particularly on the different criteria for destination and doorstep gaming and in respect of ignoring the regional context of the recommendations? Will she give an undertaking that the debate on the affirmative orders will include a thorough examination by Parliament of the criteria, and whether they were applied properly, and an assessment of how the effects of the recommendations are to be taken forward, and in what time scale?

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend, and again pay tribute to him for the way in which he represented the interests of Blackpool and his constituents throughout the process. I recognise the disappointment felt about the fact that Blackpool was not recommended by the panel. He will, no doubt, want to return in the debate to the questions and issues that he mentions, which arose from an initial study of the report.

Adrian Sanders: What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the precise number of new jobs that will be created in each of the areas that is to be allowed a licence, and what percentage of those jobs are likely to be low-value employment, and to attract only eastern European migrant workers? In the areas concerned, what support will be made available to voluntary organisations and local councils to enable them to deal with the increase in gambling addiction, and what extra resources will go to constabularies to deal with the increase in crime?

Tessa Jowell: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question will obviously depend on the way in which individual local authorities take forward and develop the proposals. There certainly are estimates for the increase in the number of jobs. Experience from around the world shows that gambling operators range from some of the best employers in the world to among the worst. One of the reasons why the policy enjoyed strong trade union support is that, based on the evidence of some of the best employers in the American gambling industry, there is a clear understanding that the jobs are good and well-paid. I hope that local authorities will take seriously judgments about the quality of the employment, training and so forth extended to staff in the intended casinos.
	As for the hon. Gentleman's questions about addiction and crime, those issues are fundamental to the oversight of the casinos and the judgment about whether they should be allowed to continue to operate. Without the protective benefits of the new legislation, people are at risk from the vast new range of gambling opportunities that have developed in the past four to five years. Those opportunities are regulated by legislation that was placed on the statute book 40 years ago, which is why we must introduce new legislation.

Nick Raynsford: My right hon. Friend will accept that there are marked differences in the characteristics of a northern city such as Manchester, a resort such as Blackpool and a destination for leisure activities such as the dome in Greenwich. While I entirely accept the importance of proper monitoring and detailed evaluation of the impact of the sites that have been chosen, does she not agree that it will be hard to draw any lessons about the suitability of future casino developments in locations such as my constituency and Blackpool on the basis of evidence from Manchester? That evidence may help to dispel much of the unwelcome scaremongering that has unfortunately characterised many of the contributions to the debate by the Opposition and their media allies, but it will not serve the purpose of the test that she announced, which is to assess whether the proposal can be extended more widely.

Tessa Jowell: My right hon. Friend is right to reflect on the challenge of ensuring that we can use conclusions from one part of the country to draw similar conclusions about another town or city. The prevalent study of the number of people throughout Great Britain who gamble and the number for whom gambling is a problem will be supplemented by the social and economic study to which I referred. They have been commissioned to address precisely the questions raised by my right hon. Friend so that the regime in individual casinos is sufficiently attuned and vigilant to protect people who use them from harm. That regime will apply not just to the casino in Manchester but, subject to the Gambling Commission's judgment, to the 16 local authorities that have been announced as areas that can have a new casino.

Michael Jack: I hope that the Secretary of State accepts that the announcement is a body blow to the Fylde coast and Blackpool's attempts to regenerate. In her statement, she said that she would "take...time to consider" the panel's findings. Will she therefore confirm that she has not finally made her mind up about Manchester? Under what terms will that consideration be conducted, and will it be open to further representations from Blackpool and other areas if there are parts of the report with which they fundamentally disagree?

Tessa Jowell: I know that that is a question that many hon. Members want to raise, and I wish to make the position clear. I have always made it clear—as I said earlier, I remember dealing with this when I appeared before the Select Committee—that the Government would accept the advisory panel's recommendations and make them the subject of a debate and a vote in the House. That remains the position. Of course, I will listen to the debate and so forth, but those who wish to advocate an alternative to Manchester or any other recommended local authority should not assume that the recommendations will be varied by the Government. We have always made it clear that we would not do so.

Clive Betts: First, congratulations to Manchester. Obviously, we in Sheffield are disappointed, but it is interesting to note that one of the main reasons why our bid was turned down was the recognised success of Sheffield's regeneration which, it is assumed, will continue with or without the casino. Will my right hon. Friend give an indication of the earliest date by which lessons from the Manchester casino can be learned sufficiently to allow bids to be made by other cities that may have a long-term interest in a regional casino at a future date?

Tessa Jowell: I set out the time scale in my opening statement. My hon. Friend should be clear that the Government have no intention of bringing forward proposals for further regional casinos. The time scale to which I am committed precludes that for this Parliament.

Stewart Hosie: I thank the Minister for her statement and advance notice of it. I particularly welcome her comments regarding regulation in relation to new technology. She will know that the traditional casino industry in the UK is the best regulated in the world, making it the safest in the world. I note her comments about new controls, but can she explain the third paragraph of the statement, which says:
	"It will be a criminal offence to permit a child to enter a casino or the gambling area of a regional casino"?
	Does that mean that children will be able to enter regional casinos, and will merely be restricted from entering the gaming floor or other gambling areas?

Tessa Jowell: What I said was straightforward. Although the planning is some way off, we expect that the regional casino will be part of a much bigger complex and development. It will not be possible for children to use the same entrance to go to a swimming pool or library as people use to go into the casino. Such separation is part of the way that we give effect to the regime to separate children and gambling.

Kevan Jones: Like the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), I followed the progress of the Gambling Bill closely, having been a member of the Standing Committee. I welcome the announcement today of 17 new casinos, but does my right hon. Friend agree that we are back where we started? We had permitted areas, which limited casinos. Under the proposals we now have 17 permitted areas, and legislation that many people supported because it was to have a liberalising effect on the gaming industry has become extremely restrictive, and would certainly have the former hon. Member for West Ham spinning in his grave.

Tessa Jowell: Yes, bless him. My hon. Friend makes a good point, but a balance must be struck. Either we allow the market to drive the number of new casinos on the basis of demand, or as these are new forms of gambling, we proceed cautiously, because our overriding objective is public protection linked to securing the benefits of regeneration. They are not as restrictive as the old permitted areas, but my hon. Friend is right to say that casino development beyond these areas will not be allowed.

Julie Kirkbride: The Secretary of State's announcement today will be deeply disappointing to many people across the country. The choice of Manchester heralds the arrival of doorstep gambling across the UK's towns and cities tomorrow, with many people encouraged to gamble more than they can afford or their families can afford. Does the right hon. Lady not recognise, even at this late stage, the superior claim of places such as Blackpool as a resort destination casino, which would be an added boost to tourism? If she cannot do that, can she recognise the deep social change that her plans are unveiling today, and offer Labour Members a free vote when the measure comes before the House?

Tessa Jowell: On the last point, the answer is no. On the point about deep social change, that social change is going on anyway. Every single television and mobile phone, as well as the internet, offers opportunities for gambling which were not available even five years ago. The Government are committed to public protection through legislation that protects the vulnerable, but we recognise that millions of people want to gamble as a legitimate leisure pursuit and should be allowed to do so. That is why we have presented the proposals. It is slightly disingenuous of the hon. Lady to talk about the result being deeply disappointing and then to condemn the Government for exposing the public to risk. We are certainly not doing that.

Graham Stringer: The advisory panel suggests that the gold standard for achievement as regards the award of the casino is regeneration. I agree with that. This part of east Manchester suffered as much as, if not more than any other part of the country during the recessions of the early '70s and '80s. The city council, working in partnership with this Government and previous Governments and using the Commonwealth games as a launch pad, has regenerated much of the area. I hope that the Government will not consider that the award of the casino means that the job is done. There is still much to be done in east Manchester, and I hope that the Government will continue to support investment there.

Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend will know how much hosting the Commonwealth games contributed to the regeneration of Manchester—a point that the advisory panel makes clearly. This is a stage in the regeneration of his city, and I know that he and those of our right hon. and hon. Friends who represent Manchester constituencies will continue their successful campaign.

John Leech: I am sure that the Secretary of State will concede that there is support for and opposition to super-casinos. In that light, will she give her support to a local referendum in Manchester so that local people get the final say on whether we have a super-casino in one of the most deprived parts of the city?

Tessa Jowell: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the report and studies the way in which Manchester consulted local people, as did other bidding cities. If he also took the trouble to read the legislation, he would realise that local authorities have an obligation to ensure that the proposals, in their various forms, are supported by local communities.

Phyllis Starkey: In assessing the successful bid from Milton Keynes, the advisory panel pointed out that it is not a city that can be described as suffering from social deprivation overall, although there are some pockets of deprivation. In its bid, the city council did not specify a precise site for the casino. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the site that is chosen maximises the benefits to the most deprived part of Milton Keynes in Bletchley in my constituency?

Tessa Jowell: Again, I recognise my hon. Friend's efforts on behalf of her constituency. The precise location will be a decision for the local authority, not for the Secretary of State, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will make her arguments as forcefully as ever.

Graham Brady: I welcome the recommendation of Manchester because it will bring benefit to the city. However, I impress on the Secretary of State that this must be a proper pilot for the possible granting of casino licences in future. Will she assure the House that the progress of the casino in Manchester will be monitored very closely from the point of view of its effect on the local community?

Tessa Jowell: I have given many right hon. and hon. Members precisely those assurances, which are fundamental to the Government's approach.

Jim Devine: Many people in Scotland, not only in Dumfries and Galloway, will be disappointed by the report. That applies particularly to the city of Glasgow. Will the cities that have failed be given a full explanation as to why that was; and will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is no right of appeal?

Tessa Jowell: There is no right of appeal, since the panel is not a statutory panel in the formal sense of the word. I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome the recommendation in relation to Dumfries and Galloway and that he and his constituents will want to study the report carefully, particularly what it says about Glasgow.

Robert Goodwill: Scarborough already has one brand new casino. A local family—the Shaw family—has shown tremendous confidence in the town by investing £7 million in the Opera House casino, which opened last year. Will the Secretary of State reassure me that it will be eligible to apply for the new licence?

Tessa Jowell: Again, that is a matter for the local authority. However, it is expected that some existing casinos will apply for licences for the new casinos.

Edward Leigh: As we all know, gambling addiction is on the increase and gambling attacks those who can least afford to pay. There is nothing romantic about casinos—they are not like "Casino Royale". They are simply factories that suck in vulnerable people to lose their money. Will the Secretary of State explain how her announcement will add to the sum of human happiness?

Tessa Jowell: Regardless of the hon. Gentleman's depressed view of human nature, people with optimistic and positive views of their lives gamble in their millions in this country. That is up to them. They can utilise all the new opportunities that are available. The Government intervene to ensure that crime does not infiltrate gambling, that especially those who are very poor do not suffer through addiction and that the industry continues to be conducted fairly. We also want to ensure that the development of casinos allows opportunities for social and economic regeneration.

Ben Wallace: Many of my constituents who live and work in Blackpool will be bitterly disappointed that Blackpool has not received the super-casino. The decision sends the wrong message that regeneration in the north starts and stops in Manchester.
	Given that the Secretary of State gave an assurance before she had read the report that she would follow the advisory panel's recommendation, and in the light of some of the contradictory points in it—hon. Members of all parties have brought those out—will she agree to meet me and other hon. Members who represent the Fylde coast to discuss Blackpool and whether anything can be done to ensure that it has a second chance of a super-casino before she brings the order back to the House?

Tessa Jowell: I am always prepared to meet hon. Members from all parties on constituency matters. That invitation extends to today's announcement as much as to any other matter for which my Department has responsibility.

Simclar

Brian H Donohoe: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 24, to discuss a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
	the shutting down of the Ayrshire plants of Simclar in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark) and, as important, the decimation of the electronics industry in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom.
	I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to raise the issue today. Closing the two plants in north Ayrshire has been a body blow to the local area's employment. We can be sure that it will immediately cost some 500 jobs, and some commentators have estimated that the real effect will raise that figure to 1,000 or even more. That is the equivalent of the loss of 4,000 jobs in Glasgow.
	The subject is far from being a local issue. I feel duty bound to point out that it is simply the latest in a line of crushing announcements about the Scottish electronics and manufacturing industry. In recent weeks, the closure of a company in Dundee was announced. Closures have also been announced in places as diverse as Edinburgh, South and Inverclyde. It is a tragedy for such events to happen in silicon glen. The unemployment that that will create is surely important nationally. However, the paramount issue is that common causes are at work.
	Scotland's—and, indeed, the United Kingdom's—ability to remain competitive in the global market is surely a salient issue that needs to be addressed. The jobs that are to be axed immediately by the company will reputedly be transferred to a location in south America. This latest catastrophe should be the signal not only for action in Ayrshire but for a full debate on the prospects for similar businesses across the whole of the United Kingdom. It is our duty to review the environment that we provide for this crucial sector of business, and to act accordingly or face similar repetitions until there is little left.
	As a result of this closure in my constituency, some 420 skilled men and women will be looking for work, with limited options at their disposal and little hope of finding employment in a similar or even related field anywhere in the United Kingdom. Many questions surrounding the closure of Simclar need to be answered, and I believe that the House should have the opportunity to question Ministers on this subject at the earliest possible time.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I have to give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider the matter that he has raised appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24. I cannot therefore submit the application to the House.

Points of Order

Peter Bone: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Today, under Standing Order No. 151, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments drew the special attention of the House to the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006. It took the unusual step of reporting the instrument for defective drafting in no fewer than five areas. A convention of the House is that debates on statutory instruments that are prayed against are not held until after the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has considered the regulation. However, the Government held a debate on this instrument prior to that consideration, thereby denying hon. Members full information before deciding on this important legislation. I know that you strongly protect the rights of hon. Members from unfair practices by the Executive. Are you satisfied with the Government's action in this matter?

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. However, the timing of debates in this House or in Committees upstairs is not a matter for me.

William Cash: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is apparent that the House has been treated with something approaching contempt by the Executive in this matter. At the moment, there are no regulations on this issue, either published or before the House. Decisions are being issued in the media, and indications are being given that no exceptions could possibly be made, despite the fact that, under section 81 of the Equality Act 2006, there is no limit to the amount of exceptions that could be made in the circumstances. Furthermore, there was no mention of adoption agencies in the Bill, and nor were there any Divisions on amendments. Nor has the matter been thoroughly discussed in the way that is required. I suggest that the way in which this matter is being conducted is bringing the House into disrepute, and I would be grateful for your opinion.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has not raised a point of order. I can only repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone), namely, that the timing and content of debates is not a matter for me.

Clive Betts: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I served on the Committee that considered the Northern Ireland orders that have just been referred to. I wonder whether you could give some guidance to Opposition Members about raising points of order as though they had a particular interest in the matter in question. In that Standing Committee, apart from the Front-Bench spokesmen, not one single Conservative Member turned up—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It looks as though I am going to be dragged into an argument, and that is not what I want. The best thing that I can do is to call the 10-minute Bill.

Climate Change (Effects)

Rob Marris: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make requirements about the monitoring of measures to address the effects of climate change; and for connected purposes.
	I have been waging a campaign on this issue in the House for about a year, in order to get our society and our Government to address much more effectively, efficiently and comprehensively the effects of climate change. Those effects include coastal erosion, higher sea levels and waves, coastal flooding from the sea, flash floods, inland flooding from heavy winter rain, increasing numbers of homes at risk of flooding, more rats, diseases such as malaria, skin cancer and heatstroke, disruption to wildlife, new predators, crop failures and drought.
	Adapting to the effects of climate change should include measures such as: improving sea defences; raising riverbanks; building bigger storm sewers, especially in urban areas; pest control of, for example, rats; NHS training to diagnose and treat tropical diseases with which this country has not hitherto been familiar; public education to avoid heatstroke and over-exposure to the sun; green corridors for wildlife, which will often move north; lessening markedly the leaks from water pipes; new reservoirs; and new rules on planning.
	We have known about greenhouse gases and their consequent climate change effects for several decades. Even nowadays, almost all the debate about climate change, both within Parliament and outside, is about addressing the causes—emissions. The Government have done well domestically and shown real leadership internationally in relation to the causes of climate change, but limiting global emissions is not within the control of any UK Government. Conversely, limiting the effects of climate change in the UK is wholly within the control of the UK Government. Public debate and action, however, has centred on one half of the problem, the causes, which is not within our national control, while it has almost wholly neglected the other half of the problem, the effects, which is within our national control.
	The Government have belatedly started to address the effects of climate change, and I salute the work of the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment. However, much more needs to be done, much more quickly. The effects of climate change are already upon us and will only get worse: we need only look outside. Dealing with the effects of climate change will require significant resources. As the Stern report showed us, however, a stitch in time will save nine.
	Dealing with the effects of climate change will also require cross-departmental co-operation and efforts in many Departments. The Bill, if passed, would simply require annual monitoring and reports to Parliament, so that we can all see what steps have been taken across government, and what steps have not been taken, to address the almost unspoken half of the climate change equation—effects.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Rob Marris.

Climate Change (Effects)

Rob Marris accordingly presented a Bill to make requirements about the monitoring of measures to address the effects of climate change; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time, and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 March; and to be printed [Bill 54].

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[4th Allotted Day]

Special Educational Needs

Madam Deputy Speaker: I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

David Willetts: I beg to move,
	That this House notes the conclusions reached by Baroness Warnock in 2005 that inclusion has failed many children; further notes the recommendation of the Education and Skills Committee that a major review be undertaken of Special Educational Needs (SEN) provision; further notes the decline in the number of special schools since 1997; further notes that there are currently no plans for a review of the closure of special schools before 2009; further notes that SEN pupils who are not in special schools who do not have statements account for almost half of all permanent exclusions; further notes the non-statutory nature of the new measures to encourage those local authorities planning to close a special school to demonstrate that alternate provision would be better; believes that the inclusion policy of the Government's Removing Barriers to Achievement document encourages local authorities to shut special schools; shares Baroness Warnock's opinion that inclusion is failing many children; further believes that resources in many mainstream schools are not adequate to deal with the SEN children in their care; considers that the initial and in-service training of teachers of SEN pupils should be strengthened; and therefore calls on the Government to follow the recommendation of the Education and Skills Committee to conduct a fundamental review of SEN provision, including the statutory provisions for statementing and meeting need, and to put a moratorium on the closure of special schools until that review has taken place.
	What an extraordinarily statesmanlike procedure the debate will follow!
	The motion reflects the extraordinary frustration and distress felt by many parents of children with special educational needs, and by those children themselves, about what is happening to special needs provision. Those emotions poured out again the other week following the decision by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to send her child to a private special school. We fully understand her right to do that, we support the decision that she made, and it is not for us to inquire into such a personal decision; but her decision did reveal—and this is a matter of legitimate public debate—the gap between the Government's official claims about the state of special educational provision in our mainstream schools and the reality of the tough decisions that parents across the country must face.
	There are, in reality, two very different worlds that clash in any debate about special educational needs. There is the SEN world according to Whitehall, and there is a completely different world—the world as experienced by parents. In the Whitehall world, we are told, everything is calm and everything is orderly, but the real world—the world of which we hear from parents who come to see us in our surgeries—is a world full of the anguish, exhaustion and desperation of those who are entangled in a system described by the Education and Skills Committee, in its excellent report, as "not fit for purpose".

Tony Baldry: Does my hon. Friend not think it bizarre that the Government dismiss the Select Committee's report so cavalierly and contemptuously in their amendment to the motion? The Committee said that a "fundamental review" of special educational needs was required. We can only assume that Labour Members do not have constituency surgeries. Perhaps they could come to our constituency surgeries, and share some of the frustration of our constituents with special educational needs.

David Willetts: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the main purposes of the debate is to bridge the gap between the experience that we have, which is reflected accurately in the report of the cross-party Select Committee, and the extraordinarily complacent assertions that we hear from Ministers whenever they are confronted with the evidence on this subject.

David Taylor: The doom and gloom in the hon. Gentleman's introductory remarks would make the flesh of Private Fraser of "Dad's Army" creep. Does he not accept that there is a patchwork picture? In Leicestershire, for instance, centrally provided money has enabled new area special schools to be built at Birch Wood in Melton Mowbray, near Hinckley and in Coalville in my constituency, and more are to follow. Surely that sort of initiative and investment should be welcomed.

David Willetts: I do welcome individual initiatives that improve special educational needs, and the hon. Gentleman is right to point out that in parts of the country the position is getting better, but today we are focusing on national policy and national statistics. We are holding the Government to account for national policies that are leading to the closure of special schools when that is not what parents want, and we are entitled to do so.

Brooks Newmark: Does not the hon. Gentleman's intervention prove the point that the Conservatives are trying to make—that many parents do indeed face a postcode lottery?

David Willetts: There is indeed divergence between different local authorities. In parts of the country parents can be lucky and find excellent provision, and very persistent parents who are willing to go to tribunals and fight court cases can obtain excellent provision as well, but that is not good enough. We want a national policy that clearly supports special schools and the particular problems of children with special educational needs, and that is what is sadly lacking at the moment.

Helen Jones: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there needs to be a sensible debate about special educational needs provision, but he must get the figures right. As the Select Committee pointed out, in the 1980s and 1990s there was a decline in the number of children in special schools and a rise in the number of children with special educational needs. Since 1999 to 2000, the proportion of children in special schools, the proportion with special educational needs and the proportion with statements have reached a plateau. I think that if we are to have a debate, we ought to have a debate on the basis of the right figures rather than the wrong ones.

David Willetts: It is a pity that the hon. Lady talked about right figures and wrong figures and then referred to those ratios since 2000, because she should be aware that in respect of the figures for the number of children with special educational needs there is a significant discontinuity in 2002-03. Therefore, it is not accurate to quote those ratios because the ratios do not provide a consistent series. The Secretary of State made that mistake—perhaps he is staying away from the Chamber today because he does not want to be held to account for it—and I am afraid it has just been made by the hon. Lady as well.

Several hon. Members: rose—

David Willetts: I will take further interventions after I have made a little progress by setting out my argument.
	We understand that inclusion in education is important and desirable, but we should be clear about what we mean by "inclusion" and "exclusion". One parent said to me of her son that although he is physically included in a mainstream classroom, he is so bullied and finding it so hard to follow what is happening in the lessons that in reality, deep down, he is excluded. That very point about inclusion in mainstream provision not necessarily equating with real inclusion was powerfully brought out in an excellent report by John MacBeath for the National Union of Teachers. He said:
	"There was also frequent testimony to exclusion within the mainstream classroom. 'Just being in a mainstream class doesn't mean inclusion', argued one primary headteacher."
	Although we believe in inclusion, all too often the children who are nominally included in a mainstream class are not achieving inclusion. It can be the case that provision in a special school targeted on children with special educational needs is the best foundation for enabling such children to participate and be included in mainstream society as they grow up. Of course we wish to achieve inclusion, but the key question is: what constitutes inclusion?

Angela Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman repeat those words to Tory Wandsworth council, which will close two special schools later this year, against parents' wishes?

David Willetts: I will turn to the evidence of what is happening in local authorities across the country in due course, but what we are focusing on today is national policy—it is the guidelines from the Government for which we are holding the Government to account. We believe that there must be a fair balance between mainstream schooling, which might be best for some children with special needs, and special provision in special schools. Wherever possible, in reaching decisions on that choice we should trust the parent and the child.
	After the original Warnock report, we achieved a fair balance and the right framework in the Education Act 1981 and the Education Act 1996; there were, of course, imperfections, but that legislation got the balance broadly right. However, things have gone seriously wrong since then. That is why parents increasingly find that they have to fight desperate battles to get their child into a special school if they believe that its provisions are in the best interests of their child.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: Can I give my hon. Friend a little help on that? I have just been through a tribunal to try to get one of my children statemented. I got information from the Library on how many successful tribunals there had been, and it is a pitifully low figure. The reason for that is clear to anyone who has appeared in one: it is a daunting and difficult uphill task for any parent. Does my hon. Friend agree?

David Willetts: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Often such parents are in any case wrestling with the trauma and stress involved in having a child who might have serious special problems; to impose on them the additional trauma of having to wrestle with complicated cases in tribunals is to pile distress on distress. The evidence shows that more parents are going through the processes that my hon. Friend describes: the number of appeals has increased by about 55 per cent. since 1997 to approximately 3,500 a year. However, it is not just that the number of appeals is going up.

Several hon. Members: rose—

David Willetts: Let me complete this point. It is not just the number of appeals that is going up; there is also clear evidence of the closure of special schools. There are now 146 fewer maintained special schools than there were in 1997, so there is a clear pattern of their closure. I shall be interested to hear if the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) welcomes that statistic, or if, like me, he is deeply concerned by it.

Sadiq Khan: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is very generous in these debates. Does he not accept that one downside of localism is that constituents experience bad local authorities, as well as good ones? My excellent local newspaper, the Wandsworth  Guardian, ran a story this week about parents suffering at the hands of a bad local authority. One parent said:
	"We have been left to our own devices. It's as if the Council don't give a damn about disabled children."
	That council is Tory Wandsworth.

David Willetts: What we are talking about today is a national policy framework, and it would be truly ironic if Labour Members started criticising Tory councils for complying with Labour Government national policy. It is the policy nationally that is leading to the closure of special schools, and that is the issue that we are raising.

Several hon. Members: rose—

David Willetts: Let me make a little more progress; I am trying to explain what is happening to special schools. I referred to the 146 special schools that have closed since 1997; let us compare that with the evidence on the performance of such schools. Ofsted rates eight in 10 special schools as "good" or "outstanding", and says that only 2 per cent. are inadequate. However, in one year alone—2004-05—26 special schools, which is more than 2 per cent. of the total number, were closed. By way of contrast, Ofsted says that 13 per cent. of normal mainstream secondary schools—of course, there are many more such schools than there are special schools—are inadequate. However, in that same year—2004-05—only 25 secondary schools were closed, which is less than 0.5 per cent. of the total number of such schools.

Anne Snelgrove: rose—

David Willetts: Let me just complete the point and give the hon. Lady the statistic. In other words, according to Ofsted, special schools are six times less likely than secondary schools to be inadequate, but three times more likely to be closed. That practice does not reflect special schools' performance, and I ask the hon. Lady to defend it.

Anne Snelgrove: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he not accept that Ofsted's report entitled "Inclusion: does it matter where pupils are taught?" found that effective provision was distributed equally between mainstream and special schools, but that more good and outstanding provision existed in resourced mainstream schools, which he has been criticising?

David Willetts: No, I would not criticise mainstream provision; there can be excellent provision in mainstream schools. What I am asking for is a fair balance that reflects the views of parents about what is in the best interests of their children. The current arrangement is not a fair balance, because what we have is the steady erosion of provision in special schools.
	Perhaps I might quote the new statistics that, by good fortune, were released today in answer to a parliamentary question that I tabled a while back. They reveal that the total number of special school places has fallen from 98,250 in 1997 to 89,000 in 2006. So it does not matter about the exact number of individual institutions; the key statistic is a fall of nearly 9,000 in the total number of special school places, as a result of Government policy.

Several hon. Members: rose—

David Willetts: I face an embarrassment of riches. I give way to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith).

Angela Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again; he is being very generous. He has just quoted the drop in the number of special school places in the last 10 years. During the previous 10 years—1986 to 1997—the then Tory Government closed 234 special schools, so have we not seen the process slow down, rather than speed up?

David Willetts: No, because the crucial statistic is the number of special school places, which is the single best measure of what is happening.

Several hon. Members: rose—

David Willetts: Hang on—let me explain this point, because it is very important. We know, thanks to a parliamentary answer given today, that there are 9,000 fewer places in special schools than there were in 1997. When the Government produced their Green Paper on the subject in October 1997, they said:
	"Across the country as a whole, some 98,000 pupils are educated in maintained or non-maintained special schools, a number which has been virtually constant throughout the 1990s."
	In the Government's own words, provision was constant in the 1990s, but since they came to office it has fallen, as we now know, by 9,000 school places. That is the problem that we are addressing today.

Several hon. Members: rose—

David Willetts: I shall give way to the Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee.

Barry Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman quotes the Committee's report on special educational needs, and I am grateful, as it was a good report. However, we did not say that we were deeply concerned by the loss in the number of places. We gained much experience from our visits, such as that to Darlington, which has a new complex of schools. New and improved special schools have been built that take larger numbers of pupils, and the horrible, pokey little Victorian schools, which were miles away from any other educational provision, have been closed. It is a complex situation which the main thrust of the hon. Gentleman's speech is not properly reflecting.

David Willetts: It is possible that, for example, two small special schools merge and form a new one. That can happen, but I am trying to focus on the number of places. The evidence of the decline in the number of places since 1997 is overwhelming, and that is a problem that concerns many parents. If it does not concern the Chairman of the Committee—although his report is overall very useful—we will have to disagree on that point. However, I have to tell him that many parents and their advisers are deeply concerned by that phenomenon.

Phyllis Starkey: The key issue is not the number of special schools places overall, but where they are and what the need is in that locality. Thus in my area a new special school is opening that is bigger than the one that it replaces, because the growth in the population of Milton Keynes has resulted in a need for more places. Will he accept that that is the issue? Simply saying that the numbers should be kept constant regardless of need is a fatuous and illogical point.

David Willetts: There are two different points at issue. I am willing to accept change if it means that one special school merges with another, resulting in new investment in special provision. I am willing to accept that the new provision should emerge in parts of the country where the population is growing. I am trying, however, to look behind the figures on the number of special schools—bad though it is—to the underlying issue, which is the number of total places, which has fallen by 9,000 without any evidence of a decline in need. The only attempt that has been made to relate the number of places to need—a ratio of the children in special needs relative to the total number with special needs—is an unreliable statistic, because the total number of children with special educational needs is an unreliable series. It cannot be used to trace back historically and that is why we cannot use that statistic.

Barry Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman is still confused about the complexity of the situation. What we discovered from our visits, and the oral and written evidence, was a complex picture. In some areas, parental views on what they preferred—special school or inclusion—changed if the inclusive provision improved. The situation is complicated and that is why we did not perceive a particular problem in the falling number of actual places.

David Willetts: Two points are clear, and the Opposition understand them. The first is that the total number of special school places, having remained stable in the 1990s, has been cut by 9,000 under this Government. The second point is that parents come to see us at our surgeries deeply dissatisfied because they cannot get their child into a special school when they believe that that would be in that child's best interests. We have frustrated and unhappy parents who want special school provision for their child and 9,000 fewer places. The nature of the problem is therefore clear.

Jim Knight: The hon. Gentleman is very interested in the statistic for the number of pupils in special schools, but has he taken account of the 20,500 pupils being taught in specially resourced provision or special units? That number has risen considerably in recent years.

David Willetts: I recognise that those new units exist, and that some of them have received good Ofsted reports. I salute the work that the best of them do, but we agree with the Audit Commission and the Select Committee about the need for a review to determine whether those special units are working as well as is claimed. The Minister makes an assertion for which, as yet, there is very little evidence.
	Although parents believe that special schools are best for their children, they are often unable to secure that provision because 9,000 places have been cut since Labour came to office.

Sarah Teather: I am disappointed with the tone of the hon. Gentleman's speech, although I agree with much of the text of the motion. The people who come to my surgery do not talk only about getting a place in a special school: more often, they want to talk about getting access to the expert help and support that their children need so that they can go to a mainstream school. The problem therefore goes beyond mainstream schools versus special schools.

David Willetts: Teachers with the specialised training who are needed to teach a child with severe autism, for example, are a specialist resource. I agree that parents ask for people with those skills, but they are much more likely to find them in special schools because that is where they are concentrated. Sadly, the chances of finding them in mainstream schools are much lower.
	The facts are clear, and the Government should accept their responsibility for what is going on. Across the country, local authorities are implementing the policies that the Government have been imposing since their first policy statement on the subject in 1997, which said that
	"we shall promote the inclusion of children with SEN within mainstream schooling".
	On this matter at least, the Government's policy has been consistent. In document after document, they have said that, wherever possible, they want children with special needs to be educated in mainstream schools. That is what the Government's guidance on inclusive schooling is all about; their 2004 document stated that
	"the proportion of children educated in special schools should fall over time".
	That is the Government's aim. Ministers should not try to dispute the statistics; instead, they should admit that we are confronted today with the consequences of the Government's deliberate policy.

Gerald Howarth: In my previous constituency of Cannock and Burntwood, there was a magnificent special school called Maple Hayes hall. It was a private school, catering for dyslexic boys. Because the boys attended a special school—not a mainstream school—with their peers, their performance improved enormously. Many of them said that they had been saved by going to that school, and many local authorities, including Labour ones, sent boys there.

David Willetts: My hon. Friend is right. We are all aware of similar examples, and the evidence is overwhelming that such environments often allow children to flourish the best. We know that parents want their children to go to schools such as the one that he described. We also know that 9,000 places have been lost, as a deliberate result of Government policy.
	Indeed, some Ministers in the Department for Education and Skills seem to be changing their position and recognising that the policy is wrong. Lord Adonis—the Minister in the other place—has particularly started to do so. I have a soft spot for the noble Lord and, from reading  The Spectator, I think the feeling may be mutual. I have great respect for what he is doing in the Department for Education and Skills; he clearly recognises that there are problems due to the rate at which special schools are closing, which is why he has tried to produce guidance about slowing down the rate of closure. However, he may be wrong in doing that—much as it pains me to say so—because his warm words will not stop the closure of special schools, when the Government's policy framework and the legal requirements are still in place. That is why we need a review of all special needs provision, and while that is happening there should be a moratorium on the closure of places in special schools.
	A series of outside experts has constantly called for such a review. The Audit Commission called for one in 2002. The Select Committee report on the subject said:
	"Despite the Audit Commission specifically calling for a review of the statementing process in 2002, four years on the Government still says it has no plans to review the statementing process. This is unacceptable."
	We think it is time that the Government complied with the requests from the Audit Commission and the Select Committee—requests with which we agree and that we would take further.

Barry Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that we called for an inquiry into the statementing process, but I have to tell him again that we found that often the right place for a child with special educational needs was with their peers in mainstream education, with the right support. The position that he has enunciated would deprive children from being with their peers, where their education would be the richest possible.

David Willetts: The Chairman of the Select Committee and the Select Committee have called for a review in the clearest possible terms. The Audit Commission has called for a review, but the Government have refused to implement one—a position that the Select Committee described as "unacceptable". It is absolutely clear to us that the policy implemented by the Government has led to the loss of 9,000 places in special schools, which has caused enormous distress to parents and their children. The policy requires the review that has been called for by the Select Committee and the Audit Commission. I invite the House to vote for our motion to put further pressure on the Government to implement that review and, meanwhile, to impose a moratorium on the closure of places in special schools.

Jim Knight: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"notes the conclusions reached by Baroness Warnock in 2005 but does not agree that inclusion has failed many children; does not agree with the view of the Education and Skills Committee that a fundamental review is needed of special educational needs provision or of the system of assessments and statements; welcomes the fact that in 2004 the Government put in place a long-term strategy for improving outcomes for children with special educational needs and disabled children that is already having an impact on their achievement; acknowledges the record levels of spending by local authorities on special educational needs of some £4.5 billion in 2006-07 that are underpinning the strategy; welcomes the measures announced in the Government's response to the Education and Skills Committee on providing better training for staff working with children with special educational needs including a national programme of continuing professional development, nationally accredited training for Special Educational Needs Coordinators in schools and measures to increase access to specialist teachers; further welcomes the announcement of an additional 15 special schools with specialist status to share expertise and raise standards and the increase in specialist and unit provision for children within, or attached to, mainstream schools; commends the Government's plans for ensuring that local authority proposals for changing special educational provision must show how they will improve provision for children with special educational needs; and considers that a moratorium on closing special schools would prevent locally elected authorities from improving their provision for children with special educational needs."
	There can be no more important task for a Government than ensuring that society protects the interests of its most vulnerable children, which is why, for example, we published the Green Paper on children in care, and why we are committed to continuing the real improvements we have seen for children with special educational needs under the Labour Government.
	I am sure that during the debate, Members on both sides of the House will highlight the difficulties that families can face in getting appropriate support for their children with special educational needs; as a constituency MP I hear stories from families in my own constituency, and I know just how frustrating that can be. Although there is much more to do before we can be satisfied that all children with special educational needs are receiving the support they need, and although there is more to do to ensure that parents are confident of that, we must not lose sight of the real progress that Ofsted reports that we are making in that regard.
	The Opposition seem to be saying that we are complacent—indeed, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) used that very word—and that we should throw everything up in the air, stop all special schools closing and create new quangos to assess children's needs. The Government could do all those things, but I ask the House to consider whether they would actually improve outcomes for children with special educational needs.
	In evidence to the Select Committee, Ofsted said:
	"If we had a big review at this time the danger is that it would diversify work, resources and developments in such a way that it could send us back to the point of the slow progress we were having prior to 2004."
	Similarly, Brian Lamb, the highly respected chair of the Special Educational Consortium has said:
	"We don't need a radical review. We want to make the system work better."
	He went on to say that the action set out in the Government's response to the Select Committee would help.

Nadine Dorries: I wrote my own minority report. Would the Minister agree with what I pointed out, which is that
	"Parents of children with special educational needs are increasingly turning to the independent and charitable sector to ensure their children receive an appropriate education for their needs"?

Jim Knight: I am not sure that parents are increasingly doing that. As far as I am aware, the balance is roughly right, but I would be interested to see any detailed statistics.
	Our priority is to build capacity throughout the system. That means making sure that staff have the skills that they need to recognise and meet children's needs earlier and to gain access to specialist support. Building capacity means planning for the long term. That is why we developed our 10-year SEN strategy "Removing Barriers to Achievement" in 2004, and also why our response to the Select Committee sets out our priorities for action over the next three years.

Helen Jones: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that if there is to be early identification of special needs, there must be far more training of staff in identifying those needs? I urge him to accept the Select Committee's recommendation that SEN training should not be optional in initial teacher training, but should be a core compulsory module within it.

Jim Knight: I broadly agree with what my hon. Friend says. We set out in our response to the Select Committee that we have committed an extra £1.1 million to the Training and Development Agency to develop exactly what we have been talking about.

Jeremy Hunt: Will the Minister comment on what the Chairman of the Select Committee said about the Department for Education and Skills in the report—that when the problems with special educational needs are so serious, it is not acceptable for the Government to say that there is no better alternative, because it is the Government's duty to look for a better alternative?

Jim Knight: I was about to say that we understand the arguments for a review. We set out our 10-year strategy in 2004. We have just launched personalisation and progression, and we think it appropriate to allow that to take its course, because we see it as critical to dealing with the individual needs of all children, including those with SEN, in the classroom. After that, we have asked Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools to carry out a review in three years' time—and we believe that the timing is appropriate.

Barry Sheerman: Let me put it straight to my hon. Friend. Baroness Warnock called for a totally independent review, and we said that we did not think that necessary, because we would carry out the review. What we called for was a review of statementing. I think that we did a good review of SEN provision; it was on statementing that we took issue with the Government—and still take issue with them. The issue is not about the generality; it is the specific question of the local authority's dual role in statementing.

Jim Knight: I will deal with that point later. I cannot promise to satisfy my hon. Friend, but I will certainly come on to the point about reviewing statementing.

John Bercow: rose—

Jim Knight: As I am on a roll, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister, and I declare a continuing interest as the parent of a statemented child. I would like to reinforce the observation made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). Given that local education authorities are in a virtually omnipotent position as the bodies that assess and decide, pay for and, ordinarily, provide the services that a special educational needs child will receive, can the Minister not see the wisdom of accepting recommendation 26, relating to paragraph 99 of the Select Committee report, which says that we must separate the link between assessment and funding? What we require is a system independent of Government, independent of LEAs, independent of the source of funding and independent of the means of supply.

Jim Knight: I see the intellectual logic of that separation, but there are real difficulties in working out how the accountability and resourcing of such a system might operate in practice. I will deal with that a little later.
	We have asked Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools to take stock of progress at the end of the period, and we will not hesitate to take further action in the light of her findings. Real progress has already been made since we published "Removing Barriers to Achievement", which clearly shows in improvements in attainment. For example, among low attaining pupils, 75 per cent. of children with special educational needs now achieve at least level 3 in maths, and 73 per cent. achieve at least level 3 in English at key stage 2. Those improvements reflect increasing investment. That is why local authorities' indicative spending on SEN stands at £4.5 billion this year. Within that funding, more resources than ever before are going to schools to support early intervention. Over the past three years, the indicative amount of SEN funding in mainstream schools has risen by 43 per cent. and the school budget for special schools has risen by 23 per cent.
	Having reached some of the early milestones that we set out in "Removing Barriers to Achievement", we are now focusing on a number of issues. Those issues include building staff skills in identifying and meeting SEN; increasing access to specialist support, as I indicated in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones); improving accountability and the quality of support to parents; and improving provision for children with behavioural, emotional and social difficulties and children with autism. I will talk through some of those ambitions in more detail in a moment, but first I want to address some of the Opposition's rhetoric.
	Special schools play an incredibly important role in meeting the particular needs of some children. I want to make it clear that, contrary to the Opposition's claims, we absolutely do not have a policy of closing special schools. In fact, over the past six years, spending on maintained special schools has risen by about £400 million to £1.4 billion, improving the quality of provision in those schools. The proportion of pupils with statements who attend special schools has actually risen over the five years. Ninety new special schools have opened in the last two years alone. If we had an anti-special schools policy, clearly it would be failing—and I would not have opened three new special schools in the west midlands in a week over the summer, or be looking forward to opening a new special school on the site of a mainstream campus in my constituency shortly, or the extension to another special school in my constituency in March.
	If we were against special schools, we would not have created a strand of the highly successful specialist schools programme specifically for special schools so that they can share their expertise in particular types of SEN with other, mainstream schools. We have announced today that a further 15 special schools have joined the programme. More than 40 special schools now have an SEN specialism. They will work with both mainstream and other special schools to spread best practice and raise standards. In the end, what the hon. Member for Havant is after—rather than getting obsessed by special schools—is ensuring that there is specialist teaching that understands the needs of individual children. We can use special schools and the network of specialist special schools to develop that expertise in mainstream as well as special school settings.

Greg Clark: Does the Minister recognise that special schools are not a homogeneous group? Some good work is done in different types of special schools, including schools with 16-plus provision and residential schools, such as Broomhill Bank school in my constituency. Does he recognise that diversity of provision is important in the sector, and does he share my concerns that the sector is becoming more uniform, as well as having fewer places available?

Jim Knight: That diversity is important. It is important that when local authorities make local decisions about provision for children with SEN, they take proper account of diversity and commission services accordingly. It is always local authorities that decide on changes to special educational provision, following local consultation and in response to changing local needs. They close special schools on wholly unsuitable sites and in unsatisfactory buildings and build new ones, or co-locate them with mainstream schools. They also develop specially resourced units in or attached to mainstream schools, which Ofsted says is often the best scenario for the children concerned.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: The Minister was a councillor many years ago in Mendip, so he will know the geographical area of Somerset. Two special educational needs schools have been shut in west Somerset, at one end of my constituency—he knows the area well. Children now have to go all the way to the far end of the constituency to get to special needs schools. The county cannot afford that, yet the schools had to be shut because of funding problems. The Minister cannot have it both ways. Which is more important: that we try to keep those other schools open and move the children a long way, or that we try to keep a school locally for the children in the greatest need?

Jim Knight: It is up to local authorities to take such decisions. The hon. Gentleman talks about funding, but throughout my county of Dorset, which has more problems with per capita funding than Somerset, there is an excellent range of special educational needs provision. In my constituency it is possible for pupils with a range of needs to access that provision relatively locally.

Martin Linton: My hon. Friend says that local authorities are closing special schools in unsuitable locations, but my local authority is closing a popular special school in a very desirable location, although The Vines has been thriving. It received an excellent report from Ofsted, and although it was praised by the local authority as one of the best schools in the authority area, plans for its closure were announced a few months later. Sadly, the school will close in August. Although the local authority has tried to blame Government policy for the closure, the real reason is the value of the site on which the school is built, which is £6 million.

Jim Knight: Hon. Members have talked about Wandsworth council's proposal to close two special schools. I have said that these are local decisions, and it is not for me to say whether the proposal is right or not. However, it is interesting to compare the actions of that Tory flagship council with Tory Front-Bench policy. Perhaps the Tory leadership now disowns Baroness Thatcher's flagships.
	In the recent report "Inclusion: does it matter where pupils are taught?", Ofsted noted that there is
	"a mistaken view that local authority reorganisations involving special school closures mean an inevitable loss of specialist support and fewer good quality choices when in fact they try to develop a range of provision to meet changing needs."
	Tory-controlled Hampshire's policy goes further. It states:
	"there is an expectation that the proportion of children educated in special schools may fall over time as mainstream schools grow their capacity to meet a wider range of needs, but flexibility of provision is key."

David Willetts: The Minister cannot have it both ways. He is showing that Conservative councils are complying with his national guidance. The statement that he attributes to Hampshire is an almost verbatim quote from the Government's strategy for SEN; that is why Hampshire is doing such a thing. The Government say:
	"the proportion of children educated in special schools should fall over time".
	That is what the Minister is requiring local authorities to do. He cannot stand behind them when they take decisions that comply with his policy. He will be on the picket line next, trying to stop them doing it. The authorities are delivering the Government's policy.

Jim Knight: The hon. Gentleman has to understand that local authorities need to respond to local needs. If, as democratically accountable bodies, they decide to do something different, they have the power to do it. They are responsible for school organisation, and these are decisions about school organisation.
	Leaving aside the contradiction between what the Tories say in the Chamber and what they do in power, what would the official Opposition's policy of a moratorium on special school closures do to improve outcomes for children with SEN? It would certainly mean that Ministers in Whitehall, rather than elected local councillors, would take decisions about meeting local needs. During deliberations in the other place on the Bill that became the Education and Inspections Act 2006, Baroness Buscombe tabled a new clause titled "Closure of special schools", which would have provided:
	"No special school may be closed, unless by special consent of the Secretary of State".
	I do not understand how Conservative Members think that that policy would work. If, God forbid, the Department for Education and Skills should ever become Tory controlled, such a policy would mean that the Department would spend a ridiculous amount of time taking local decisions that were insensitive to local needs. Local authorities would be prevented from replacing old and out-of-date facilities.
	Under such a moratorium, Oldham would not have been able to close three small special schools to create New Bridge school, a special school for 284 students aged 11 to 19 with a range of needs. Among the pupils are students with profound, severe and moderate learning difficulties, autistic spectrum disorders and physical difficulties. The school offers excellent facilities and is located on a site with a mainstream secondary school—that is excellent practice. The school has been praised by Ofsted for its
	"excellent array of extra-curricular opportunities and the wide range of suitable vocational courses available to students, alongside a key skills and leisure curriculum".
	Is that the sort of development that the Opposition want to blight through their policy of moratorium, which is mentioned in their motion?
	Ofsted found little difference in the quality of provision, and in the outcomes for pupils, across primary and secondary mainstream and special schools, but it noted that mainstream schools provided with additional resources to cater specifically for children with particular types of need are
	"particularly successful in achieving high outcomes for pupils academically, socially and personally."
	Just as we have never had a policy of closing special schools, we have never accepted that we must choose between sustaining special schools and improving provision in mainstream schools. Our policy is to promote a flexible range of provision, including mainstream schools, special schools and resourced provision in, or attached to, mainstream schools.

Jeremy Hunt: Does the Minister agree with the view, expressed by Baroness Warnock in her recent book, that there is often a complicated trade-off between the social benefits of inclusion and the educational benefits of being educated at a special school, where a child can receive specialist support that may not be available in the mainstream? If he agrees with that view, does he also agree that the best person to take the decision is the parent of the child concerned?

Jim Knight: It is important for us to make sure that the parents' voice is heard, and we are keen to ensure that it is. That is one of the priorities that we set out in "Removing Barriers to Achievement", and one of the areas on which we are focusing.
	We will issue guidance to local authorities on the factors that they must take into account when reorganising their special educational provision. When Lord Adonis announced the guidance recently, he made it clear that local authorities wishing to close special schools would face an improvement test. Under that test—Opposition Members should pay attention to this—any plans for reorganising local special educational provision, including any proposals for closing special schools, must improve existing provision. Local authorities must also show that appropriate alternative provision is ready before schools close. Is that not a sensible pragmatic approach that safeguards the needs of those who rely on special schools, without blocking change? Is it not a substantial policy, in contrast to what the Opposition propose?

John Bercow: That would work if it were the policy, but it will not work if it is not the policy—and that is what I politely suggest to the Minister. I accept the logic of his overall view, but I put to him the case of an institution that is not formally a school, but operates as such, the Nuffield speech and language unit. There are currently three children at that school with severe speech, language and communication impairments, and they face the threat—it is almost a certainty—of being kicked out of that institution, without being provided with substitute provision of the same quality to meet their needs. That is the consequence of arrogance, incompetence and insensitivity, not on the part of the Government but on the part of the Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust, and it should not be allowed.

Jim Knight: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's close interest in that facility, and his effective advocacy on behalf of it, but the guidance that I mentioned will be statutory, and I hope that that gives some comfort to Opposition Members who have concerns about the subject. The guidance will safeguard the interests of children with special educational needs. It will provide added protection and will guarantee local communities, children and parents that provision in their area will only get better.
	One system with which some parents experience difficulties is the assessment and statementing process—a subject that I promised I would cover. I recognise parents' real frustration, but I do not believe that we are talking about a symptom of a whole system in crisis. As we have heard, the Select Committee on Education and Skills asked us to revise the statementing system. I understand its perspective, and I want to reassure the House that we considered the issues carefully before we made our response. I ask Members to consider just a few of the practicalities of changing the assessments and statements system. If local authorities were no longer responsible for statutory assessments, it is likely that we would need another agency to carry them out.

Barry Sheerman: Why?

Jim Knight: Because someone would have to carry out the assessments, and it would need to be a credible, accountable and independent body. There would be no point in providing the independence that Members ask for if we did not set the system up in an independent form. Obviously, we are always willing to listen to ideas, but having thought about the subject, I believe that we would need another agency. How could that agency guarantee local accountability in the same way as a local authority? If the assessment agency specified the provision to be made for each child, what would happen afterwards? If parents were provided with a voucher—Opposition Members may support such a proposal—what would happen if it was not enough to buy the appropriate provision? Those questions have not been answered convincingly, in the House, in the country, or internationally.

Barry Sheerman: May I probe my hon. Friend a little further? The Select Committee asked for a review, and it suggested that it should be possible to come to a better arrangement than one in which the local authority both conducted the evaluation and provided the resources. The Government said that we were asking for a quango, but that is not the case. If a group of serious people sat down and discussed alternative methods of assessment, they would not propose a great quango. A small independent committee system might be the answer, but the Government could opt for various solutions. We were aggrieved at the implication that we were proposing a quango, because we were not. There must be another way of dividing assessment from the provision of resources, and I believe that men and women of good will could find a system that was both simple and effective.

Jim Knight: As ever, I heed the wisdom of the Chairman of the Select Committee. As I told the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), I can see the intellectual attraction of that separation, but when I have tried to think about practical arrangements—obviously, I am a bear of limited intelligence—I have not been able to determine what they should be. The Select Committee made a strong case for the division, but it did not offer any practical proposals as to how it would work. I am willing to discuss the matter with my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), but first I need some practical suggestions.

Barry Sheerman: If my hon. Friend is challenging us to do what we thought the Government would do and come up with a series of measures, will he give us an assurance that he will take them seriously? If we do that quickly, will he assess our suggestions quickly?

Jim Knight: I always take the Select Committee seriously, as does the Department. If its members can deal with the issues of accountability and practicality and propose a system that will work properly in the real world, obviously I will listen.

John Bercow: rose—

Jim Knight: The final intervention on this subject will be from the hon. Member for Buckingham.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister of State, who has been exceptionally generous in giving way. It is always baffling when a brilliant Minister is characterised by a sudden and inexplicable timidity. It is perfectly possible for a group of well-intentioned people from all parts of the House to get together and produce an effective and practical blueprint. The Minister would not need to get rid of the local education authority role altogether if he did not want to; he would simply have to ensure that the LEA was not in a position of virtual monopoly. Whatever arguments he advances for the status quo, I urge him not to talk about accountability. Special needs parents do not have great power.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is limited, and interventions appear to be getting longer.

Jim Knight: I shall move on, Madam Deputy Speaker, but as ever, I will bear in mind the comments of the hon. Member for Buckingham.
	Staff training is critical to ensure that children receive the standard and quality of teaching that they deserve and to which they are entitled. The standards for qualified teachers are being reviewed by the Training and Development Agency, as I said, and we expect the new standards to recognise the importance of trainee teachers having a knowledge and understanding of SEN and disability, as well as the skills to vary their approach to meet the needs of individual children. We expect SEN and disability to be a national priority in the framework for continuing professional development. This year, we will introduce the first ever national programme of continuing professional development for staff supporting children with SEN, which will be delivered through the national strategies and will begin with training in speech, language and communication difficulties, followed by training on autism and behavioural, emotional and social difficulties.
	We are strengthening the role of the special educational needs co-ordinator—SENCO—in schools, making it a statutory requirement for schools to have SENCOs and setting out our expectations in regulations. Those developments are in addition to the £1.1 million programme with the TDA that I mentioned, which will build staff skills at all levels, from initial teacher training to continuing professional development.
	With our autism working group, we are developing a resource pack for teachers to meet the needs of children with autistic spectrum disorders.

Annette Brooke: Will the Minister give way?

Jim Knight: I will, but bearing in mind Madam Deputy Speaker's comments.

Annette Brooke: Will the Minister extend the training programme to include, for example, passenger assistance on transport carrying children with autism?

Jim Knight: I cannot give the hon. Lady a response now, but I will drop her a line if we are unable to give her an answer before the end of the debate.
	Access to specialist support is essential to enable all children with SEN to make progress, so we are supporting the development of regional centres of expertise and promoting collaboration between local authorities and other agencies to provide for children with the most complex needs.
	We are piloting a trust model, drawing in private sponsorship, to help train specialist teachers in dyslexia. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who is no longer in his place, mentioned a school that he used to represent. These specialist teachers will make a real difference not just in their own schools, but in families of schools.
	Parents rightly want to know how their children are doing. We are improving accountability to parents by making better data available to schools through a common data set to monitor and evaluate children's progress. This means that parents can see how each child's progress compares with that of their peers, and make judgments about any additional support that should be put in place. We are encouraging schools to discuss this information with parents at meetings each term.
	Finally, we will improve the quality of parent partnership services and strengthen the "arm's length" nature of their relationship with local authorities by setting clear expectations for the way in which such services are provided.
	Real progress can only be made through a sustained long-term programme of action. I hope that I have illustrated that commitment today, and that I have done justice to the comprehensive system of support that we are building—a system that will deliver real improvements for children with special educational needs and their families, rather than the stop-go policy of the Opposition, which seeks to stall all improvements in reviews and moratoriums.

Sarah Teather: I begin, perhaps a little unusually, by thanking the Conservatives for using one of their Opposition days to debate this important topic. It is useful for us to have time to discuss such matters in detail. Notwithstanding the relatively brief debates that we had in the course of the Education and Inspections Bill, since our last major debate on the subject on the Floor of the House two significant reports have been published that have been highly critical of the Government's provision—the Education and Skills Committee report and the Ofsted report on inclusion. Those reports follow hard on the heels of reports by Ofsted in 2004 and by the Audit Commission in 2002, which highlighted serious flaws in standards and access to provision for children with special educational needs.
	I agree with much that is in the text of the motion. It touches on many of the issues that I shall raise in relation to the training of staff and the need for the Government to review their statementing process. However, as I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), I regret the framing of the debate, which is polarised between provision in mainstream schools or provision in special schools. By polarising the debate in that way, we are in danger of missing many of the more complex failings in the provision of education for children with special educational needs, which many parents come to discuss with me in my surgery. I often laugh at the fact that the hon. Gentleman has a habit of writing comments with which I agree, but when he speaks he has a tendency to talk me out of supporting him. I shall attempt to resist that urge today and be more conciliatory.
	I shall deal later with the Government's inclusion agenda and the Conservatives' proposal for a moratorium, but first I shall make some general points about the quality of education in all settings. At the end of my remarks, I shall speak about the reform of the statementing process and the financial support that goes with it.
	Let us be clear from the beginning that the division between mainstream and special schools is crude. Children can learn in a variety of settings—in a mainstream school, with additional support; in a mainstream school with a specialist facility; in a mainstream or special school with additional part-time support at a unit elsewhere, such as the Hope centre in my constituency; at a special school co-located with a mainstream school; or at a special school. Collaboration between mainstream and special schools is possible and desirable, albeit that it does not happen often enough. I therefore fear that the debate that we have had so far is rather a false one.
	The key issue, as highlighted by innumerable reports by Ofsted and the Audit Commission, is that of quality—or a lack of it, or at least variations in it. Variations in quality exist between and within different types of school. Sadly, there is good and bad provision in mainstream and in special schools, and bad provision in either is unacceptable. For me, Ofsted's most damning statement about education for children with special needs concerned the low aspirations about, and poor understanding of, what constitutes good progress for children. Why should children with special needs be short-changed on standards and rigour? Critical to the success of children in all schools, whether mainstream or special, is the quality of teachers and the quality of leadership. The level of expertise and training is the key factor in standards in schools, regardless of type.
	The Government failed to respond to many of the Select Committee's criticisms, but I am pleased that they at least responded to criticism about the training of the work force, as the Minister outlined. That is welcome, but I suspect that we have a long way to go. Last September, I spent a day shadowing teachers in Manor special school in my constituency, and one of the things that shocked me was the amount of time that senior management are required to give to training staff—all staff, not only teachers—who work within a special school setting. Many arrive with no prior knowledge of special educational needs. The burdens of headship are very great in any school, but greater still in a special school, where the leadership team are required to take such an enormous role in staff development.
	Many children with moderate or severe learning difficulties also have complex medical needs that a school must deal with effectively. For those children, as well as for many others with primarily physical disabilities, seamless working with the local health service is essential. It is therefore an issue of enormous concern that many local authorities find their joint working with the primary care trust pushed to breaking point as PCTs try to find any service that they can cut to cost-shunt on to councils in order to meet the impending deadline to clear their deficit. In my own local authority, since last September the PCT has, without any consultation, withdrawn speech and language therapy from 160 children and reduced occupational therapy provision to special and mainstream schools by 50 per cent. It now proposes to decommission music therapy for autistic children and mental health services for young people with a learning disability. There is a real danger that short-term cost cutting will have an impact that will last a generation, and I dare say that the situation is not unique to Brent.
	Let me turn to inclusion. It should go without saying, although it has not been said enough so far, that the key to good provision is that it is child-centred and focuses on the whole child and the family's wishes, not on the disability. A child with special educational needs is as unique as a child without special educational needs, and though two children may have very similar diagnoses or statements, they may require a very different type of educational setting in order to thrive. However, that approach is surely at odds with a policy objective clearly aimed at placing children in mainstream provision and reducing the number of places at special schools.
	The Minister said that the Government do not have such a policy. However, the 2004 special educational needs strategy, "Removing Barriers to Achievement", clearly states that the proportion of children educated in special schools should "fall over time" and that there should be a "reduced reliance on statements". The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 and the 2001 SEN code of practice outline a similar approach. If the Government have changed their policy, as the Minister claims, I wish that they would simply come clean and say so. As the Select Committee observed in its report, if they are saying that they play no role whatsoever as regards local authority reorganisation or decisions to close schools, that is surely an abdication of responsibility. The Government set the national framework. If they have changed their stance on inclusion and now favour—as the Minister for Schools says—a broad continuum of flexible provision, which I hope most hon. Members welcome, they should make that clear to local authorities, which have to interpret the strategy on the ground.
	I do not agree that education in a mainstream setting has failed so many children so badly. Education in mainstream schools, without the sort of expert support and high quality specialist teaching that Ofsted noted and to which I referred earlier, has done that. That failure to support inclusion leads to exclusion in an inclusive setting. Lack of teacher training and support led to the appalling mistreatment of, for example, Jade Chambers, who was restrained 45 times in six weeks. Such lack of training and expertise leads so many children with communication difficulties to go undiagnosed. The frustration of those children, which is inevitable if they do not receive appropriate support, leads far too many of them to develop the sort of behavioural problems that make exclusion inevitable, too.
	Between 20 and 30 per cent. of children with autism are excluded from school for precisely the reasons that I outlined. We are failing those children badly. Lack of support, appropriate training and adequate leadership makes bullying children with SEN inevitable, as the Warnock report stated. That was possibly the most depressing statement in the report. It is a depressing admission of failure to say that it is inevitable for a child with SEN to be the victim of bullying.
	Inclusion has all too often been treated as the cheap option. The root of the problem lies with the flawed statementing process and financial constraints on councils. The Select Committee was right to be disappointed with the Government's response to its report. It was hardly the first to point out that the statementing process is flawed, yet the Government have refused to review it. Like many Members of Parliament, I meet countless families in my surgery who are battling to get the help that they believe that their child badly needs. The lengthy, bureaucratic, highly adversarial process leads in many cases to a long-term fracturing of the relationship between the family and the local authority. That relationship is essential if they are to work together to get appropriate education and care for the child.
	My party is considering reviewing our policies on the matter, but I am sympathetic to the arguments that the Select Committee and others made for a clear division between the body that advises on need and the body that provides the resources to meet the need. My sympathy for that derives mainly from my work in science policy before I was elected. Many of the crises that developed in scientific aspects of public policy began with a loss of confidence in expert advice because one cannot clearly delineate the point at which expert advice ends and political decision making starts. For expert advice to be credible, one needs to separate carefully fact, expert advice and policy based on that advice. One needs to be able to track an audit trail through all the stages involved in making a decision, with clear accountability lines at each point, to pick up on the Minister's point. For the same reason, I have always felt uncomfortable with the conflation of the roles in the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence of ruling on the efficacy of a treatment and determining its cost effectiveness. That problem causes much anxiety.
	We cannot continue with a process that allows local authorities to delay statementing for as long as possible or draft statements in imprecise language to lessen the expense on the authority. I understand the Minister's point that separating the roles may create a mismatch between those defining need and the budget that must pay for it. However, if we separated the roles, perhaps we could have an honest debate about how big the budget should be, instead of continuing with rationing based on the extent of parents' motivation to fight the system. If the statement of need were separated from the payment of resources, we might be able to break the trap that leaves many children to begin the battle again every time they move house. That applies especially to families in temporary accommodation, who may move from one local authority to another, and looked-after children, who are especially vulnerable.
	That point brings me to the question of resources. Hon. Members will know that, in general, I support the delegation of funding from central Government to local government. However, the situation that we are discussing today is analogous to the commissioning of specialist services in the NHS, in that we need to find a practical and pragmatic way around the issue of hard-to-predict or rare and expensive cases. It plays havoc with the budget of a small local authority if a child requiring high levels of support moves into an area in the middle of a financial year. If we had a central pot from which to support such cases, the pressure on local authorities would be much more manageable. As I have said, my party is looking at these issues at the moment, and we will bring forward more detailed policies shortly. I only hope that the Government will do likewise.
	As I said at the outset, I have great sympathy with much in the text of the motion that we are debating today. However, I thoroughly disagree with the Conservatives' proposal for a moratorium on the closure of special schools. Ofsted was quite clear that there is good and bad provision in special schools. A moratorium would effectively make it impossible to close a school with poor facilities or poor standards, or to rebuild the school or move it to a unit co-located on a mainstream site. Nevertheless, we will support the Conservatives today because we support the substantive points raised in their motion and their call for the Government to review their provision for special educational needs, and perhaps also because we could not support the self-congratulatory and rather complacent amendment tabled by the Government. The Government's record on this issue is lamentable and their response to the Select Committee report was woeful. It is time that they responded properly.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind all right hon. and hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 10-minute time limit on contributions in this debate? However, in view of the time factor, Members might wish voluntarily to reduce the length of their contributions to the debate even further.

Andrew Smith: I welcome the opportunity to debate provision for special educational needs. I am proud of the progress that has been made in the past 10 years, often with the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Indeed, this is a subject about which the public are especially impatient with partisan point scoring, both because it is obviously an area in which personal and professional experience and ideas are not confined to party lines, and because effective policy demands co-operation between central Government and local education authorities, regardless of political complexion.
	This is also an area in which debates on matters such as mainstreaming versus special schools have often distorted the reality, as the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) has just said. It is pretty obvious to most people that we need special schools and mainstreaming, and that we will get the best choices and the best outcomes where there is close collaboration. That is the position set out by the Disability Rights Commission in its briefing for this debate, and it is the view of the overwhelming majority of concerned parents in my constituency.
	Progress on inclusion is being made in our area, hand in hand with special school provision. A high proportion of special schools in Oxfordshire are co-located with mainstream schools, increasing the chances to mix. The number of tribunal cases is low, and has halved to 20 over the past four years. Contrary to the argument in the Opposition motion, in Oxfordshire there have been no special school closures under successive Administrations for decades. It is true that the excellent Ormerod school for physically disabled children is now technically closing, but its special circumstances illustrate an important and positive point—it has had falling numbers because parents and their children have chosen mainstream provision. However, it is being changed into a special needs base and will continue to admit physically disabled children while also taking on those with other needs—notably related to communication and autism—from whom demand is increasing. There was not a single objection to the change. I have also checked the numbers relating to special schools in the county. In April 1996 it was 916, and in April 2006 it was 915.6, which demonstrates a quite remarkable stability.
	However, on important questions of special needs choice, availability and collaboration, there is one specific and pressing challenge facing pupils, parents and the local education authority in Oxfordshire on which I want to focus. Alone among English education authorities, Oxfordshire has no post-16 provision in special schools. Thirty years ago, the LEA decided to develop post-16 provision exclusively in further education colleges. I am not knocking the education provided in our FE colleges. Many students transfer successfully, and many parents and Ofsted are satisfied with their support. Equally, however, many parents, especially those whose children have more complex needs, are unhappy. Indeed, the time approaching transition is often a period of enormous anxiety, and it is easy to understand why. Special schools in the county have a good record of providing education in a particularly supportive environment, in which those who might find it difficult to make their way in mainstream surroundings develop the security and confidence to make the most of their abilities.
	Two special schools inspected last autumn—Ormerod and Frank Wise—were assessed as outstanding. Two more—Fitzwaryn and Northern House—were also given top grades, and Iffley Mead special school in my constituency is good and improving. Indeed, I presented awards for the young enterprise business projects in central Oxfordshire on Saturday, and Iffley Mead school was one of the few state schools represented—its project won an award. Yet, at the age of 16, Oxfordshire students have to leave these supportive schools, with their more sheltered provision, and move to the environment of an FE college. These colleges are often some distance from their homes, have more students, and have a social ambiance which, with the best will in the world, will not always be easy for a student with complex special needs. It is recognised that such colleges are not suitable for some students, but that means that their parents have to make the case not only for alternative provision, but for out-of-county provision. In general, Oxfordshire has one of the highest levels of provision for in-county SEN, yet nearly half of those who are educated out of county are post-16, at a cost of £1.4 million a year, because their needs cannot be met within the county.
	Parents campaigning for change in Oxfordshire have worked through a very effective voluntary organisation, Choice, which is committed to disabled young people post-16 being offered the same educational choices as those without disabilities. The county council and learning and skills council responded by commissioning a review by Dr. Matthew Griffiths. The review set out options for the future, and Choice conducted a consultation with parents, who overwhelmingly favoured special school-based provision.
	The LEA decided to support the principle that
	"school based provision should be provided as soon as possible",
	and last month agreed interim proposals to enable some courses for some pupils beyond 16—those with the most complex needs—to be taught in their existing special schools from this coming September, even though the pupils would be on the roll of the FE college, effectively sub-contracting back to the schools. This is a step forward, and while there have been fears over whether responsibility would lie with the school or the college if something went wrong, the council has made a commitment that each pupil will have a document setting out their entitlement and the way in which parental concerns will be addressed.
	What we really need, and what most parents want, is real choice for children to continue as a school student at a special school—a choice that is available elsewhere but not in Oxfordshire. However, the county's proposals are a genuine attempt to make progress by opening up the school route without destabilising the FE provision. The financial implications of all that are that an extra £150,000 will be required in the next financial year, rising to an additional £1.1 million in 2010-11, even if only students with the most complex needs have places in special schools. It would be twice that amount if all special schools had the age range extended to 19. There are additional capital costs involved as well.
	Oxfordshire is in a unique position in terms of provision, so it has ended up in a uniquely disadvantageous funding position in relation to funding. No one is suggesting the Government have deliberately brought that about—the situation is clearly a product of the very unusual trajectory that provision in Oxfordshire has taken. On the one hand, the county's grant from the Department for Education and Skills through the Learning and Skills Council is very low because it has historically spent less on post-16 special needs students, because they went through the FE route; on the other, the further education colleges only receive funding in line with colleges elsewhere, despite the fact that in Oxfordshire they are effectively providing special schools on their roll. As a result, county officers advise me, Learning and Skills Council funding for post-16 special needs in Oxfordshire is £15 per head of the 16 to 19 population, compared with a national average of £63 and an average of £48 for our "statistical neighbours" among other shire counties.
	Therefore, there are crucial questions for Ministers to answer. As Oxfordshire grows special school post-16 provision into the system, will funding be increased to a fair level comparable with other areas? Will those who continue in FE, whether through choice or compulsion, get fair financial provision compared with their peers in other areas who are in schools? There are basic questions of equity that must be addressed. In November, I wrote to the Secretary of State to seek a meeting with an appropriate Minister on that matter, and I hope that in his reply my hon. Friend will tell me both that Oxfordshire's unique position is recognised and that he will be pleased to have an early meeting with me and other Oxfordshire MPs to examine those questions.
	Special educational needs provision in this country has come a long way in recent years. There is still more to do, as we heard earlier, to ensure that every child can readily access the educational, social and psychological support that they need. While there is much good progress to be pleased about in our area, with more special needs students getting qualifications, assessments completed on time, and much good special needs provision helping young people to fulfil their potential—and let us not forget to praise the teachers who are working with the young people to achieve that—there are issues of fair provision and funding post-16 that must now be sorted out.

Henry Bellingham: I declare an interest, as I am a father of a seven-year-old who has special educational needs and is on a statement. We had to go through a tribunal to organise his current programme. I agree with the praise that the right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) gave to the teachers in his constituency. I also praise the teachers in my constituency, although my boy did not go through the statementing process in Norfolk; we went through the process in London. I will not say which borough is involved, but the school is doing a superb job.
	Every parent who has experience of this problem realises how vital early intervention is. That is why so much stress is involved in the whole statementing process. As I understand it, a remarkable 236,700 children in this country have statements—2.9 per cent. of the total. Nearly 1.3 million children in this country with special educational needs do not have a statement, and nearly 6 per cent. of those who do have a statement are in mainstream education. As the Minister and most Members will know from their constituency surgeries, the whole process is long drawn out, hugely time-consuming and traumatic. The vast majority of those parents who come to my surgeries, month in and month out, to tell me about their children, paint a picture of their family being at an all-time low, totally stressed out at a vulnerable time, and faced with a wall of bureaucratic paperwork. As my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) pointed out, the process is often very daunting.
	I speak from experience, because I happen to be a qualified barrister, and we were able to afford an experienced solicitor. We went to the local authority, and we did not receive the statement that we felt was appropriate. We then went to a tribunal. Even for two people with professional qualifications, that was a trying and exhausting experience. While that was taking place, I wondered all the time how many of my constituents would have coped, and do cope, in similar circumstances. Often, they do not cope at all.
	The system is in urgent need of reform. Although Her Majesty's Government have promised a review of the statementing process and framework, I understand that it is likely to be delayed until 2009. Why is that? I praise my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) under whose leadership our party has set up a special educational needs commission. The findings of that commission's interim report are well worth considering. The commission recommends that statements should be replaced by a special needs profile, which should be drawn up by independent, accredited profile assessors using objective criteria. The child in question would be allocated to one of approximately 12 levels of support, each of which would attract funding that would be provided by a national funding agency. Vitally, the child would then carry those funds to a mainstream or special needs school. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) feels strongly about that point.
	One of the attractions of our proposals is that much of the bureaucracy in the statementing process will be removed, and parents will be given far greater choice. I hope that we will therefore move away from a slow, laborious, adversarial appeals system, to one that is fast and non-adversarial.

Geoffrey Cox: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems with the statementing system, which I have also experienced, is that it is very legalistic? One often has to analyse a particular paragraph, phrase or nuance to see whether it will allow for the breadth of provision that one wants one's child to have. How can we expect people who do not have the necessary education or articulacy to persist and persist again to ensure that that they get the formula that will best suit their children? Does he agree that we must have a review?

Henry Bellingham: I agree entirely. The Government should listen to what our party is saying, and consider the report and recommendations of our commission. My hon. and learned Friend and I both speak from experience. We are both barristers—he is an eminent Queen's counsel, and I am only a former junior barrister, although I had the privilege of practising for a number of years. Even with the knowledge that I accumulated at the Bar, the tribunal faced us with a very large amount of paperwork, which required a great deal of digestion. My hon. and learned Friend is right to ask how many parents can even begin to cope with the process.

John Bercow: There is a related problem entailed in this conflict of interest. Is my hon. Friend aware of the common phenomenon of local education authorities telling parents not to worry, because the problems will disappear, recede or be overcome, and that one cannot know for certain whether that assertion is motivated by intellectual conviction or the desire to preserve filthy lucre?

Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I do not want to speak any more about my case, because the House will get bored quickly, but I also deal with a large number of constituency cases, and I am left to conclude time and again that the local education authority puts every conceivable obstacle in people's way at every turn. The LEA is not driven necessarily by the primacy of the needs of the children; it can also be driven by the cost implications of the statement. The extra intervention and help will always have a cost implication. That is why our proposal takes a great deal of pressure away from the LEA through the setting-up of a funding agency, and enables the child to take that funding stream with him or her to either a mainstream school or a special school.
	That brings me to the issue of special school closures, which has been discussed at some length. There is no question but that special schools do a superb job. I understand that they are six times less likely to be classed as inadequate, and yet they are three times more likely to close. North-West Norfolk has two special schools. The Alderman Jackson school caters for children with special needs ranging from those who are seriously disabled and who require 24/7 attention day in and day out, through to those who are still disabled and have serious special needs but on a more moderate scale.
	Ethel Tipple school is in the same part of King's Lynn, not very far away. The pupils range from those with mild special educational needs to those with moderate SEN. Many have come from mainstream education: typically, they have been in mainstream education throughout their primary careers. When they move to secondary school, they find it difficult to keep up. They may end up being bullied, or distracting the class. The attention that they received as a result of their statements in primary school, in smaller classes where other children may have had less inclination to pick on them, enabled them to settle, but they find it difficult to settle in secondary education and consequently move to Ethel Tipple school, where some have been given back their confidence and self-esteem and, as a result, have returned to mainstream education.
	Our local education authority is now obeying the instructions of the Minister's Department and is merging the two schools. To be fair, there will be a brand spanking new school on the site of Ethel Tipple, but Alderman Jackson school will close. All the special needs children, including those who are seriously disabled, will be taught in the same school. Of course I look forward to the new school opening in due course, but I think that the jury is out. We are moving into uncharted waters. The process of closing a school that was able to give hands-on attention to children with serious special needs and disabilities and moving them into a general special school will be fraught with problems. I hope and pray that it works, but obviously it will be a question of waiting and seeing what happens as we step into the unknown.
	Speech therapy is a vital part of the whole early intervention process. I understand that 58 per cent. of children who have speech and language therapy written into their statements receive it. Time and again I meet parents in my constituency whose children have speech and language therapy written into their statements, but do not receive it. I recently met a group of North-West Norfolk parents from the spectrum group allied to the Norfolk branch of the National Autistic Society. There is mixed provision for their children, most of whom are on the autistic disorder spectrum. They range from children who are completely non-verbal to those with mild dyspraxia, mild dyslexia or mild autism.
	One of the recurring themes at that meeting was the total inadequacy of speech therapy provision. Charlie is six and is totally non-verbal. He is in mainstream education. His statement entitles him to full provision of speech and language therapy, but he has received none whatever. Tom is also six and also in mainstream education with a statement. He is articulatorily dyspraxic, and his speech is very poor indeed. He was promised four days of speech therapy per week, but is receiving only two days. He is slightly luckier than Charlie, who receives none at all.
	The problem is very simple. A few months ago the primary care trust decided to keep a speech and language therapy position unfilled until the new financial year because of pressures on it. A letter that I have received from the county council explains that the problems caused by reconfiguration of the PCT have led to many difficulties. Another big problem is the extent to which the local education authority liaises with and talks to the PCT. There are lessons to be learnt. The good news is that the post is to be filled, but there will be a backlog—a legacy—of problems.
	I hope very much that we will approach this issue on a non-partisan basis. The public are very irritated by politicians who are too confrontational about it: they expect us to be pragmatic, innovative and imaginative. I hope that the Government will listen to Members throughout the House.

Barry Sheerman: I shall try to be brief, as I was allowed to intervene on the Front-Bench speeches. I noted that in the special Christmas edition of  Private Eye I was described as a windbag and that my Education and Skills Committee was described as "soapy". Perhaps I will dispel that reputation by being brief today.
	I was a bit disappointed—in fact, my emotions were mixed—when I saw that this subject was to be debated on an Opposition day. I felt it was fantastic that we had secured another debate on special educational needs, but the feeling was tinged with sadness that we were dragging the issue into the realms of "We are better than you" and "You have done worse than us". The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) was absolutely right: we need a consensus.
	In fact a consensus is emerging, and we should not avoid it. There is an emerging consensus between what was said by the Select Committee, what was said in the interim report of the Leader of the Opposition's group, and much of the work that the Government are doing. We have seen change and more change since my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) became Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills. What caused my big disappointment was the way in which the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) concentrated on the number of children in special schools. The evidence, the visits, and all that our Select Committee did suggested that the position was much more complex.
	Those who visit as many schools as we do—as I do, certainly—will know that there is poor provision in special schools. They are in awful, tumbledown Victorian buildings miles from any other school.

Douglas Carswell: rose—

Barry Sheerman: I will not give way, because I am going to be brief. I am awfully sorry.
	There are also bad modern special schools. Someone from a London borough to whom I was talking recently told me proudly "We are building a new special school." I said "That is interesting. Where is it?" "Oh, about a mile from the nearest school." What we need is co-provision—buildings that are on the same site, or close to each other. It should be possible to do what was done in Darlington, and build a special school in the heart of another school.

Douglas Carswell: rose—

Barry Sheerman: I will give way.

Douglas Carswell: I thank the hon. Gentleman. In the interests of building cross-party consensus, will he confirm that he too thinks it is time for the Government to review the statement process radically, to make it much less of a battle for parents to get their children assessed and to empower parents? Parents of children in Harwich and Clacton—which, as he knows, the Select Committee visited—are having to fight to obtain statements.

Barry Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman is a very good member of my Committee, and he knows that I agree with him. That was a cross-party recommendation, and I have intervened a number of times in an attempt to make the point. We wanted an independent review to deal with it, although I think that the review that we produced was very good.
	The position is complex. Things are moving quite fast, including the school building programme: 800 new schools have been built since 1997, which has allowed a great deal of fine provision in mainstream schools, and special schools are also being built. I want to be totally fair to the Government on that score. What is essential, however, is early and speedy diagnosis of a child's needs. That is what every parent wants. Wherever parents may be, they want a speedy, highly professional diagnosis as early as possible: at nursery school, in the very earliest years. As for statements, we want the balance to be changed, and if there is to be an appeal process, let us make the darn thing fast. We ought to be able to give parents a guarantee that they will have to wait for only a short time.

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right about the need for early diagnosis as a prerequisite of early intervention. Does he agree that, as part of either the early-years framework or the common assessment system, there should be a screening test to identify speech, language and communication impairments, which Afasic recently recommended?

Barry Sheerman: Yes. As long as the tests are the right ones, I think that early use of them is very important. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have visited a school about which he is passionate, and I agree with what he has said.
	Both the statementing process and the appeal process must be fast. If personalised learning means anything, and if we are to learn anything from it, it must relate to special needs. That is the very heart of personalised learning—indeed, the best personalised learning in special needs is the model for what we eventually want for every pupil. Such personalised learning is crucial for children with challenging conditions.
	We must also look at costs. We have underrated that issue, and it has not been alluded to in the debate. The cost of failing to identify problems and of not providing proper provision must be considered. That leads to many children being excluded from school. The figures in that respect are very worrying; I think that I am right in saying that 27 per cent. of those excluded have special educational needs. Exclusion is expensive. Although it is expensive for a young person to get special provision within a particular framework, it also becomes expensive if that young person starts truanting or gets involved in crime. We should also consider the NEET category—those who are not in education, employment or training. A high proportion of NEETs—as high as 80 per cent. in some areas—have a history of special educational needs. My Committee also conducted a prison education review last year. It showed that about half of the people in prison have a history of poor education, lack of education and special educational needs. Therefore, the cost to our economy and to society is great.
	If those conducting an inquiry do it right, they do not write it themselves; instead of dreaming it up, they listen to people out in the world. Members of my Select Committee read the evidence and take account of the oral evidence and go on visits, but we also listen. If a Committee gets things right, it picks up a resonance, and we then report that resonance—we write it down and tell the Government about it. We faced great difficulty in breaking through the usual suspects—all the pressure groups and the people who want to abolish all special schools and those who do not want to close any. We listened to voices from such extremes but we did not accept what was said.
	However, we did listen carefully to parents; we did so as much as we could. Indeed, one Saturday afternoon I even went to Hampton Wick in the constituency of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and listened to 120 parents who told me in no uncertain terms about what it was like to have a child with special educational needs. I was told that in some cases that means that they have a child for ever, and about what happens at 16 and 18 and when education runs out, and about what happens when there is no work or no special provision—and about how the woman in such circumstances has often been deserted by her male partner, and she has to look after that child until he is 40 and then 50 and so on until her own life is finished.
	The catalogue of stories that I heard revealed to me that if we do another special educational needs inquiry—we always find that there is another inquiry that should be done—it should be on provision for those post-16 years of age. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) highlighted that in the case of Oxford. In terms of profound special educational needs, we need to take a careful look at what happens to children when they reach 16, 18 and beyond.
	Finally, we discovered something very disturbing. What is happening in our society that leads to increasing numbers of children suffering from very serious and sophisticated problems in terms of the ability to learn? Let me refer to autism. The spectrum is increasingly becoming understood; it is a wide spectrum, and there are some especially worrying features. Why do six times more boys than girls suffer from some form of autism? We did not have time to probe that.

Nadine Dorries: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Barry Sheerman: No, as I believe that I can only give way twice.
	Might a Committee other than mine—or a Department—start looking at the scientific facts in respect of the problem I have referred to? What is the medical or scientific analysis of what is happening in this complex area of special need?
	I have galloped through my speech in order to give other Members a chance to speak.

Brooks Newmark: Like many colleagues in this House, I have a child with significant special educational needs. I have also been a school governor at two schools where I was responsible for special needs education, and for the past 20 months many people have come to talk to me about the issue.
	Given that communication is one of the crucial tools for children with special educational needs, we all know that speech and language therapy must be at the core of what they require. As the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists has said,
	"without shared communication, there is automatic exclusion and isolation".
	The Government's aspiration for inclusion for all children is admirable, but, unfortunately, their policy of removing barriers to achievement is not working.
	I wish to talk briefly about my son, Max, because his experiences and what I, as his parent, have gone through are instructive. He is 14 years old. For the first nine years we tried very hard to keep him at the same school as his three other siblings. Unfortunately, year after year his confidence went down. We struggled; we fought with the school to keep him, and it played ball with us by keeping him there. Unfortunately, in the end neither Max nor the school could cope, so we moved him. We were lucky; we were able to move him to a specialist school. Over the next four years, he improved dramatically—his self-confidence in particular improved—and last year, when he was 13, we were able to bring him back into the mainstream. The problem with the current system is that there is no flexibility for children who do not have parents who have the ability—perhaps such as me—to fight hard for their children and who have the financial wherewithal to move their children to specialist schools. Many of my constituents cannot even articulate the problems that their children have.
	However, for children without severe needs, the Government's strategy has been working. Many schools in my constituency do a great job for children who do not have significant educational needs, such as those with dyslexia. Mainstream schools now have the ability to help to support children with such special needs. However, Baroness Warnock has said—and I must agree with her—that special educational needs
	"has come to be the name of a single category, and the government uses it as if it is the same problem to include a child in a wheelchair and a child with Asperger's, and that is conspicuously untrue."
	Unfortunately, for children with severe needs, the system seems—for whatever reason—to be failing. Schools are shutting down, and there is a lack of qualified teachers to help children; there are even staff cuts. Last weekend, I met one of my constituents, Pauline Hicks, whose nine-year-old daughter, Darcey, is severely deaf. She showed me a letter that she had received from the speech and language therapy manager of Mid Essex primary care trust to the head teacher of her daughter's school that said:
	"I am writing to let you know that our service is currently undergoing a review following changes in the NHS and as a result of staff shortages. This means we will be offering a restricted service."
	Because of a lack of resources there is now nowhere for her to take her daughter to receive the support that she needs. The problem is that, with the best will in the world, if the Government want to deliver on their objectives, they must put in the necessary resources.
	Chapel Hill school in Braintree was in a very poor area. It went into special measures, and when it did so, I decided to become a school governor. Of the children attending Chapel Hill, 42 per cent. had some form of special educational needs, yet when I arrived there was not a single special educational needs teacher. We eventually found one who had had six weeks' training, but it was too late. The school had to close and the children and the community were ultimately broken up—in some families three children ended up going to three different schools.
	Southview school, another excellent school in my constituency, has just built a beautiful new building, yet the Government have made its task of kitting it out more difficult by ending the excellent communication aids project. The problem is the lack of consistency in Government funding. There is no point in funding for one or two years; there must be consistency.
	However, the biggest challenge, as we heard from the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), is statementing. Although most of our children learn their ABC, children who need statementing—and their families—are learning a less benign version of the ABC. It begins with "Assessment", goes on to "Bureaucracy" and ends with "Complexity". This is a big issue.
	As the report of the "Parliamentary hearings on services for disabled children" said of those with special needs,
	"Access to statements should not be used as a means of rationing resources nor should a statement be used as a reason to deny services".
	The Education and Skills Committee's report on special needs identified
	"an inbuilt conflict of interest in the system"
	and recommended that
	"The link must be broken between assessment and funding".
	The problem is that the system involves reverse engineering. The approach taken is, "Let's figure out what pocket of money we have today—what pool of money—and let's see how we can allocate it", instead of putting children's needs at the front and centre. I therefore ask the Government to conduct a fundamental review of special educational needs that puts the child's needs first and foremost.

Angela Smith: I, too, am very pleased to be able to debate this topic, which is of critical importance to everybody in the Chamber today and to every Member of the House of Commons. It is acknowledged in all parts of the House that we still have some way to go on this issue. I agree completely with the Select Committee's conclusion that we need a review of statementing policy, and I hope that at some point, the Government will agree to conduct one more quickly than they have already promised to do.
	However, the issue is not just the statementing process; we must also acknowledge that there are sometimes problems with the implementation of statementing decisions. I, like many Members who have spoken today, will refer to the personal problems that I have experienced with the statementing process. My sister's little boy was unable to speak at all by the age of two, and by the age of three he was still living in a world of silence. The general practitioner, the health visitor and the nursery school staff would not believe that little Tom had a problem. In this case, the mother—my sister—knew that something was wrong, but all the professionals refused, up to the point of school entry, to do anything about it.
	In the end, a statement was arranged, and the question whether my little nephew was on the autistic spectrum was investigated. At one point, it looked as though he would be placed on that spectrum, but in the end, a statement was arrived at and the school put some support in place. However, the support and the statement were inadequate, and in the end, my sister had to go to a tribunal to get the situation sorted out. I was going to be a witness at that tribunal, but an advocacy service supplied by a charity from Hull sorted out the various issues before the tribunal took place. One point that has been overlooked today is that the tribunal process, adversarial as it is—in fact, it is a sign of the failure of the system—often resolves such issues. In the end, local authorities back down; they do not like tribunals. If a good advocate is available, the issues can be resolved. That bright little boy, who was trapped in that silent world, is here with us today. Because his mother was prepared to fight, he has got over his problems, is off the statement and is doing very well at school.
	The problem with the existing system is that, far too often, parents have to fight for the statement and its application, and to fight continually to keep that statement in place. I know of cases where the reviews of statements at the point of transition to the secondary level have led to a downgrading of the support that should be available to enable a child to be placed in the mainstream sector, rather than in the special school sector. When a parent is so desperate that they have to visit their MP's surgery to argue the case against a review ruling and to get things put right, we know that the system has gone wrong.

John Bercow: Parents surely need the insurance policy of provision that is detailed, specific and quantified. Does the hon. Lady not accept that one of the endemic failings of the statementing process—not in all authorities but in many, and of both major political complexions—is the tendency to use words such as "frequent" and "regular", which are gloriously unspecific? Christmas is regular, but it does come only once a year.

Angela Smith: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I was about to say that it is important to distinguish in this debate between the Government's general policy approach to special educational needs and the specifics of how authorities are implementing SEN policy. The statement is at the heart of that process. We should always remember, in trying to evaluate how well we are doing in delivering the best possible services for children with special needs, that local authorities are responsible for developing SEN practice.
	Government policy on SEN is clear; "Removing Barriers to Achievement" emphasised the continuing role of special schools and stressed the need for a flexible range of SEN provision, with special schools acting as centres of excellence for spreading good practice across all maintained education provision. That, to some extent, is why I do not understand the position of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) and her party, who say that they will vote with the Conservatives on the moratorium. Our policy is to encourage a broad continuum of provision, and anybody who disbelieves that will have to explain why Sheffield has been awarded substantial capital funding in the past five years to build five new special schools.
	We are building those five new special schools because our previous provision, which was located in a particular part of Sheffield, was in the wrong place and that meant that children living in the far north of the city were travelling great distances to get to school. Anybody who has dealt with children with special needs knows that travel to school is one of the biggest and most difficult issues in SEN policy. It takes some children in Sheffield an hour and a half to get to school in the morning. That is why we have to redevelop our provision, and why a moratorium would be disastrous for my city. As a result of it, we would not be able to close down the old schools and build new ones in the right places, in order to give our children the best possible chances in the education system. Moreover, three of the new schools will be close to mainstream provision, thereby making it easier to offer a really flexible range of learning opportunities for students. In many cases, a mix of mainstream and special provision is best. Even in the mainstream sector, my city is developing integrated resources and the usual mainstream provision for special needs students.
	On top of all this, the city's schools are expected to work together to deliver for SEN kids on an individual level. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) was the important one. If we get personalised learning right for SEN children, we get it right for all children. If we get learning right for children with dyslexia in state schools, we get it right for all children. I have taught English post-16, and I have taught people with dyslexia. If a person with dyslexia needs yellow paper in order to read more easily, everybody in the class should have handouts on yellow paper. That improves outcomes for the dyslexic individual, and does nothing to harm the learning of all the other children in the class. It is not rocket science—we can do it.
	I am convinced that the Government have got the right strategic approach, but they also have a responsibility to ensure that local authorities and schools deliver the best possible learning opportunities for all children with SEN. There is no doubt that we have further work to do on that point. Too often parents complain that in the cases of non-statemented children—the issue of dyslexia becomes more relevant here—provision in mainstream schools is poorly developed and inconsistent in application. That is why the Government were right to respond by promising more effectively trained SENCOs; an entrenchment in schools of personalised learning, so that all children can be catered for; and more rigorous internal monitoring and evaluation by school of pupils' progress.
	Making it mandatory for SENCOs to be teachers is critical. There is no point in having teaching assistants as SENCOs in schools. Teaching assistants do a fantastic job, but being a SENCO is a job for a teaching professional. It is a key leadership role and the use of teachers in that role is right.
	We will have to await the impact of the Government's measures on improving the delivery of SEN education for children in the classroom, but what is certain is that parents are the key. They should be fully involved, and any decent school will fully involve parents in putting together the individual education plan for their child. Parents should be involved in monitoring and encouraging progress, but we also need to think afresh about how to strengthen even further the voices of parents with SEN children in the system. What does a parent do when the LEA refuses to believe that a school is doing something wrong? The parent goes to the governing body, which sides with the school. As a cabinet member for education in a local authority, I received letters from parents of children with special needs, complaining about schools. It happens in all authorities. I would demand that something be done and the officers would say, "You are the LEA, so you have to defend the school." Incidentally, one good thing about the Education and Inspections Act 2006 is that it separates the schools from the local authorities and makes those authorities the champions of parents in challenging schools to deliver for SEN children. However, we still need to do more and I challenge the Government to find new ways of breaking the cycle of powerlessness that parents experience when things go wrong in schools. They are the first ones to know, and we should always listen to them when they say that things are not right.
	The contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) about post-16 provision was right. It is woefully inadequate. Sheffield has the same problem as Oxford, and we have children going over the border to Derbyshire because most of the post-16 provision is in the local college. The college does its best, but if there is an argument for pastoral education for the general range of 16-plus children, there is even more of an argument for making that sheltered provision available for special needs kids—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has had her time.

Nick Gibb: This has been a good and informed debate in a very sensitive area, on a subject that can at times be over-polarised between those who believe in total inclusion and those who believe in none. As with most issues, the answer lies somewhere between the two poles.
	As the right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) would no doubt agree, there are many children with special educational needs who most certainly should be in a mainstream school, including many children with physical disabilities, children with mild cerebral palsy who have good communication skills and cognitive ability, and children with very mild learning difficulties or mild Asperger's. For such children, inclusion in mainstream schools is very important and beneficial. It may mean that some adjustment is needed by the school, but it will be worth it to ensure that those children have access to a full curriculum and to the social benefits of being with a wide range of children, including being able to socialise with children who live in their neighbourhood, and all that goes with that, such as parties, sleepovers and weekend sporting activities.
	However, there are other children whose needs are such that they require very specialised teaching, and providing that is not just about training, but about the experience gained in a career devoted to teaching children with particular problems and needs. In October I visited the Percy Hedley Foundation in Newcastle, a special school that educates children with severe cerebral palsy. It uses an advanced form of the Hungarian conductive method, which uses physical therapy to re-educate the brain to operate the muscles and limbs. There is a lot of one-to-one therapy by highly trained and dedicated teachers.
	Many children with cerebral palsy are intelligent, but their physical difficulties mean that they need that specialist education to help them to overcome those problems. Children who are permanently confined to a wheelchair when they start at the school can learn to walk. Children with no communication ability can be taught to use a computer with a switch operated by touching it with their cheek. No mainstream setting could give that sort of training, and therefore access to a full education.
	Which type of education is most appropriate must depend on the needs of the child and the wishes of the parents. The whole "race to inclusion" which occurred after the Warnock report of 1978 was a reaction to a legitimate problem. One of the great successes of the post-Warnock era has been the fact that disabled children are now integrated into a common educational framework. It has also led to an emphasis on the specific needs of the individual, rather than making assumptions based on medical diagnosis. But the problem with how that inclusion has been adopted in practice is that it has become an end in itself, rather than being focused on the needs of individual children. Because of that, the inclusion movement risks discrediting the concept of inclusion. It is naive to believe that it is possible to teach all children with serious and profound learning difficulties in the same classes, learning the same lessons, as their mainstream peers. Some disabilities, such as more severe forms of autism, make communication and interaction almost impossible. Forcing such children to interact in a mainstream school with hundreds of people can be extremely damaging for them.
	Even today, the prevailing view in most local authorities is that they should reduce the number of statements and reduce their use of special schools. That very point was put to me by local authority officials in Bromley yesterday despite the revised statutory guidance mentioned by the Minister.
	In the 2004 document "Removing Barriers to Achievement", the Government told us that
	"the proportion of children in special schools should fall over time".
	Is that still Government policy? The Education and Skills Committee found that
	"it is reasonable for those involved in SEN to assume that the Government holds a policy of inclusion from which it has given guidance to local authorities to reduce both the proportion of pupils in special schools and to reduce reliance on statements."
	Baroness Warnock has criticised the Government's position. She said recently:
	"Government thinking is set on immovable tracks. Special schools are a place of last resort, only, we are told, for children with severe and complex disabilities. But for other children we must keep them out of special schools by hook or by crook to educate them in mainstream schools."
	That is why we have seen the closure of so many special schools for those with moderate learning difficulties.
	Cedar Hall school in Benfleet, Essex is an example of a highly effective MLD special school. Many children at that school had horrific experiences in mainstream education. I met children who had attempted suicide at their previous mainstream schools, so miserable were they. At Cedar Hall, with its specialist and experienced approach, those children flourish. They have friends for the first time, and their education is rigorous and effective. My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark) has spoken about his personal experience and his son Max, who thrived in just such a special school, to such an extent that he was able to return to mainstream education when he was 13.
	The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) was right to say that we need to try to reach a consensus on these issues. In his best—if I may say so—non-windbag style, he was right to point to the effectiveness of co-location of specialist schools or units with mainstream schools. That provides the best of both worlds, with specialist teaching and expertise as well as the potential for social interaction for the children.
	The hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) was one of many hon. Members to criticise the statementing process, and she was right to do so. She called it lengthy and bureaucratic, saying that there were deliberate delays to lessen the burden on local authorities, and rationing on the basis of parental commitment. There is a widespread suspicion that that is what the Government's approach is all about.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) spoke passionately and from personal experience about the horrors of the lengthy statementing process. He said that dealing with all the bureaucracy was a very trying and exhausting experience, and he referred to the special educational needs commission established by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), when he was shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills. Last year it recommended the removal of the conflict of interest in statementing—a change also recommended by the Education and Skills Committee, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) reminded the House with his usual accuracy.
	The statementing process is clearly in need of urgent review. It has become a Kafkaesque nightmare for parents, who have to cope with finding out that their child has special educational needs, and then with meeting those needs, at the same time as they are navigating the labyrinth of the statementing and appeals process.
	Since 2002, report after report has exposed the shortcomings of the current system. The Audit Commission's 2002 report stated:
	"Statutory assessment is a slow and unresponsive process...Most parents said they 'had to fight' to have their child's needs formally assessed...This was often linked to a perception that the local authority was trying to control its expenditure."
	It recommended that the
	"Government should establish a high-level independent review to consider options for future reform—engaging all key stakeholders."
	The need for a review was also emphasised by the Education and Skills Committee in its report last year, which said:
	"the SEN system is demonstrably no longer fit for purpose",
	and found
	"significant problems with the current system of SEN provision and high levels of dissatisfaction amongst parents and teachers."
	The report went on to urge the Government to
	"consider a completely fresh look to SEN".
	The Government's response to the report was disappointing. The hon. Member for Huddersfield summed up his Committee's view when he said that the Government's response was
	"the most abrasive and challenging that I have ever read in any response to a Committee report since I have been Chairman."—[ Official Report, Westminster Hall, 26 October 2006; Vol. 450, c. 492WH.]
	That is an awfully long time. By rejecting a review, the Government rejected one of the most fundamental and important findings of that entire Select Committee report. They are promising an Ofsted report in 2009, which means that two more years will be wasted, with little done in the interim.
	The Opposition seek only two things from the Government this afternoon, and if they deliver them they will have our full backing. The first is a moratorium on any more closures of special school places until a review has taken place. We do not want the stop-go process that the Minister for Schools described but merely a pause, to ensure that we are going in the right direction. Our second requirement is a fundamental and immediate review of SEN provision.
	I hope that the Government will concede to these demands. By doing so, they can improve the education available to thousands of special needs children, and ease the burden on their parents just a little.

Parmjit Dhanda: I shall begin my remarks by commending the contributions by hon. Members of all parties today. We may differ in our opinions about policy, but we share a common ambition to improve the educational attainments of children with special educational needs and disabilities. We also want to improve their health, safety and well-being, and to increase the extent to which they are able to contribute to society.
	I pay tribute to the skill and dedication of the staff in our schools and early years settings, and of the professionals in the education, health and social care services. Working together, they do their best to ensure that children with SEN and disabilities are able to make the most of their time in education. I also pay tribute to the parents of children with SEN and disabilities; there are some such parents in the Chamber today. They know their children better than anyone else, and they sometimes feel that they have to battle to get them the support that they need.
	It is worth taking stock and looking at the context of the Select Committee report. The Government have taken positive action as a result of it, although other initiatives—some of them were mentioned at least tangentially in the debate, while others were not—were under way already.
	My hon. Friend the Minister for Schools was right to say that support and training for SEN is an integral part of introductory teacher training. We are also working with the Training and Development Agency on a programme worth £1.1 million to ensure that people in the early stages of becoming teachers have opportunities to secure placements in special schools. We are also working to create an information portal so that they can share best practice.
	We are keen to do more to promote access to specialist support. My hon. Friend the Minister for Schools earlier mentioned the 15 new specialist schools that we will be creating. We are also keen to work with special schools, and to tap into the expertise of their staff, so that more outreach work with mainstream schools can be undertaken.
	We want parents to enjoy better accountability and support—a common theme in this debate—and we will achieve that in part through the parent partnership services. They play a really important role: they can help parents who are unsure about whether their child has special needs, or assist them with the statementing process. In addition, they can provide support for parents who, believing that the school to which their child is being sent is not the best option, go through the special educational needs and disability tribunal process. We want those services to remain at arm's length from local authorities, and we intend to beef them up.
	In addition, we are working with the National Autistic Society's autism working group, and many hon. Members will have attended the launch of the society's "Make School Make Sense" campaign. We are working closely with local government organisations, teaching groups and the NAS to prepare better resource packs for teachers so that they can identify children with autistic spectrum disorders and subsequently support them in the classroom.
	We are also doing a lot of work with statementing, and are introducing a new performance indicator for the full process. A performance indicator is already in place that requires a local authority to have a draft statement ready 18 weeks after a statement is first requested. The new indicator will set out a maximum end-to-end period of 26 weeks for the statementing process.

Annette Brooke: Will the Minister give way?

Parmjit Dhanda: No, as I have only a little while left.
	The debate has not covered the amount of investment that the Government have made available. Ofsted has reported improvements since the publication in 2004 of "Removing Barriers to Achievement", our long-term SEN strategy. For example, the percentage of children with SEN who do not achieve at least level 3 in maths at key stage 2 has fallen from 28 per cent. to 25 per cent. between 2003 and 2005. For English, the proportion of children with SEN who do not achieve at least level 3 has fallen from 31 per cent. to 27 per cent. That shows that the Government's policy is making a difference in attainment.
	Those improvements reflect the increasing investment that the Government have made in provision for children with SEN. Local authorities' indicative spending on SEN rose to £4.5 billion in 2006-07. Of that total, £1.3 billion is delegated to maintained special schools, and £1.8 billion to mainstream schools. Budgets for special schools are rising by 23 per cent., from £1.1 billion to £1.3 billion.
	The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) talked about statistics, and about the effect on parents of the statementing process. When considering the context, it is worth bearing in mind that of the 1.3 million children with special educational needs, only 3,215 have gone through the SENDIST—special educational needs and disability tribunal—appeal process, and only 332 did so on the grounds that they were not happy with their choice of school.
	In the short time available for my response, I hope that I have been able to get across the facts about the extra money and extra resources that we are putting in. We are making a difference for children with special educational needs, and as Ofsted says, the right time for a review will be 2009-10, when we can effectively measure the differences and changes that we have made. In the meantime, the moratorium that has been mentioned by many Members would result only in the scrapping of new developments and new schools, such as the facilities in Leicestershire and Oldham, so if that is what Opposition Members want, they should bear in mind that it will be on their consciences.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 296.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Question, That the proposed words be there added,  put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker  forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House notes the conclusions reached by Baroness Warnock in 2005 but does not agree that inclusion has failed many children; does not agree with the view of the Education and Skills Committee that a fundamental review is needed of special educational needs provision or of the system of assessments and statements; welcomes the fact that in 2004 the Government put in place a long-term strategy for improving outcomes for children with special educational needs and disabled children that is already having an impact on their achievement; acknowledges the record levels of spending by local authorities on special educational needs of some £4.5 billion in 2006-07 that are underpinning the strategy; welcomes the measures announced in the Government's response to the Education and Skills Committee on providing better training for staff working with children with special educational needs including a national programme of continuing professional development, nationally accredited training for Special Educational Needs Coordinators in schools and measures to increase access to specialist teachers; further welcomes the announcement of an additional 15 special schools with specialist status to share expertise and raise standards and the increase in specialist and unit provision for children within, or attached to, mainstream schools; commends the Government's plans for ensuring that local authority proposals for changing special educational provision must show how they will improve provision for children with special educational needs; and considers that a moratorium on closing special schools would prevent locally elected authorities from improving their provision for children with special educational needs.

Sale of Radar System (Tanzania)

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must tell the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister. I must also tell the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a 12-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches in the debate.

Andrew Mitchell: I beg to move,
	That this House notes the protests of citizens of Tanzania in a demonstration in Dar es Salaam on 20th January 2007 demanding the arrest of any wrongdoers involved in the sale of a radar system to Tanzania in 2001-02; further notes that the Serious Fraud Office is investigating the propriety of the deal and allegations of corruption; further notes that Tanzania is one of the poorest countries in the world and a leading recipient of British aid; further notes that Tanzania borrowed to finance this deal, whilst simultaneously seeking and receiving debt relief; calls upon the Government to explain whether adequate enquiries were made into the propriety of the deal at the time; further calls upon the Government to explain why the views of the World Bank were not adequately considered in the process of deciding whether to issue an export licence, in breach of Criterion Eight of the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria; and further calls upon the Government to explain why consent to the deal was forced through a divided Cabinet by the Prime Minister in the face of the opposition of the then Secretary of State for International Development, the Rt Hon Member for Birmingham, Ladywood.
	Our purpose in calling tonight's debate is not only to hold the Prime Minister to account for his decision on this deal, but to help ensure that the mistakes made by the British Government in the handling of this issue do not happen again. I note that the Secretary of State for International Development refers in his amendment to new procedures, so I hope that he will spell out precisely in his reply how they would stop any recurrence of such events.
	We are concerned that if those circumstances were to be repeated, there is little doubt that public support for the British international development agenda, which the Secretary of State and I hold dear, could be seriously eroded and undermined. I remind the House of the relevant facts. In 2001, the British Government were asked to consider applications for export licences for the sale to the Tanzanian Government of an air traffic control system. The system cost £28 million and the heavily indebted Tanzanian Government took on more debt to secure it. The International Civil Aviation Organisation said that the system was
	"not adequate and too expensive for civil purposes".
	The International Monetary Fund told the Prime Minister that it was very concerned about the impact of the purchase on Tanzania's external debt burden. The sale was opposed by leaders of Tanzanian civil society, who advised the Prime Minister that it was "too expensive" and "murky". In Britain, a wide spectrum of international development organisations were completely opposed to the deal. Oxfam said that the deal was "outrageous" and
	"a complete waste of money".
	Many in Britain felt that the money would be better used to tackle disease and to promote primary education.

John Spellar: Before the hon. Gentleman gets to the main part of his speech, will he tell us whether he thought that the existing system was adequate and what should have replaced it?

Andrew Mitchell: As the right hon. Gentleman will well know, its replacement had the full support of this side of the House, so I do not see the relevance of that to the case that I am making.
	The contract was opposed by the World Bank, which argued compellingly that the £28 million system was far "too expensive" and was outdated, and that a satisfactory system could have been secured for a fraction of the price.

Susan Kramer: Did the Tory party, or anybody on the Tory Front Bench, object at the time?

Andrew Mitchell: I am delighted to assure the hon. Lady that we did. In order to ensure that I am fully informed about these points, I have taken a note of what my predecessors said. The former shadow Secretary of State for International Development said:
	"At a time when Tanzania is not meeting its UN Targets on primary education and poverty reduction, an air traffic control scheme is the last thing they need."
	My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) said:
	"It is pretty ludicrous to expect Tanzania to be spending £28 million on a military air traffic control system it does not need. There are perfectly good civilian air traffic control systems that would cost considerably less."
	The answer to the hon. Lady is that, absolutely, we did make that clear.
	Of particular significance is the fact that the sale was opposed by the then Secretary of State for International Development, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), who, according to  The Guardian, said that the deal "stank". It is entirely clear that her role in this sorry saga was, throughout, beyond reproach. I pay tribute to the many officials at the Department for International Development who stuck their necks out to argue forcefully around Whitehall against the consents.

Kevan Jones: Is not the system for both civilian and military use in Tanzania? The hon. Gentleman says that the system is outdated, but is it not used in, I think, eight regional airports in the UK?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman may well be making an interesting point, but it is not relevant to the argument that we are exploring.
	Despite the opposition of all the most informed, respected and qualified observers, approval for the licences was forced through a divided Cabinet by the Prime Minister. The licences were granted on 20 December 2001. Early last year, the Serious Fraud Office started investigating the deal for alleged corruption. On 15 January 2007,  The Guardian reported that some $12 million had been secretly paid into the Swiss bank account of an agent with connections to senior military and Government officials in Tanzania.
	Those revelations have been greeted with outrage by ordinary people in Tanzania. On 20 January 2007, hundreds of people took to the streets of Dar es Salaam to insist that any wrongdoers are brought to justice. A senior Opposition leader said that the money should have been
	"used to build classrooms and roads. Tanzanians must get angry that they have lost this money."
	Just as those people are calling their Government to account, we should ask detailed questions of our Government about their role in this matter. The revelations raise serious questions about the depth of the scrutiny that was given to the deal when it was considered and the wisdom of the Government in making that decision. The matter should cause us to pause and think carefully about how we interact with Governments in developing countries and to what extent we can and should second guess their priorities if the British taxpayer is partly or wholly footing the bill.

Susan Kramer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what will distress the people of Tanzania greatly is the feeling that there is hypocrisy in the system and that there is a double standard? Similar allegations will be set aside when a friendly country such as Saudi Arabia is involved, but they will be pursued with energy by both Tory and Labour Front Benchers when a small African country is involved.

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Lady makes an interesting point about Saudi Arabia, but that is not the subject of the debate.
	The Tanzanian context of the deal cannot be ignored. Tanzania is one of the poorest countries in the world. In 2001, more than half the population lived in severe poverty. Life expectancy at birth was 45 years. Primary school enrolment was 67 per cent. Some 2 million people were living with HIV/AIDS. Tanzania had a national debt of $5.4 billion. It had recently received debt relief from the World Bank and the IMF through the initiative for heavily indebted poor countries. For a long time, Britain has been a major donor. In 2000-01, we gave £111 million—£35 million of which was in direct budget support. In handing over that money, British taxpayers wanted, and Tanzania needed, every possible penny to be spent on measures to promote development, such as building basic health and education systems and tackling killer diseases. According to Oxfam, £28 million could have provided basic health care for 2 million people or an education for 3.5 million children.
	We now know that the issue provoked lively debate in the Cabinet. It is worth noting the powerful case that the then Secretary of State for International Development put forward. She rightly acknowledged that Tanzania could benefit from improved air traffic control, but many experts made it clear at the time that they thought that the dual military/civilian radar system that was sold was vastly overpriced. Despite the high price tag, the system would cover only a third of the country. According to the World Bank, a much cheaper and more suitable civilian system could be bought. Indeed, in a bid to be helpful it commissioned the International Civil Aviation Organisation to examine the suitability of the proposed system. On 8 November, the ICAO returned with an extremely critical preliminary report that dismissed the system as using ageing technology and described it as
	"not adequate and too expensive".
	That was sent to the then Secretary of State for International Development, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood, who in turn distributed it among the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office. Despite those condemnatory initial findings, the Prime Minister did not wait to hear the results of the full ICAO report—he forced approval through the Cabinet.

Daniel Kawczynski: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is regrettable that the right hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt), the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, is not in the Chamber to hear these allegations? She was instrumental in getting the deal forced through at the time.

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend makes a point, but I have no doubt that the Secretary of State for International Development will answer on behalf of the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Tony Baldry: I think that I am correct in saying that when the Select Committee asked the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry she refused to allow her officials to come to give evidence to the Select Committee. That was rather depressing. One of the other depressing things is that the Select Committee was always told that the deal was the wish of the Tanzanian Government. That sends out some alarm signals for the future in relation to budget support. Having the concept of budget support and being told that the deal was what the Tanzanian Government wanted was almost like saying, "Well, there is no scrutiny because this is what the Government of Tanzania want."

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend makes a good point about budgetary support. However, British aid has strengthened civil society in Tanzania, and that is one of the reasons why we are hearing such comments about the deal and why Tanzanian civil society is making representations.

David Taylor: To develop the intervention made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer), what conclusions does the hon. Gentleman draw from the craven abandonment by the SFO of the investigation into BAE Systems' payments to Saudi Arabia, with a gross national income of—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This debate is not about Saudi Arabia. It is possible to make a passing reference to it, but that is all.

Andrew Mitchell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Tobias Ellwood: Has my hon. Friend read reports that the Watchman air traffic control system that was sold to Tanzania had been built prior to Cabinet approval? If those reports are true, does he agree that that is one of the reasons why the deal was forced through the Cabinet?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right that there was a system of prior approval. I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us that that is one of the aspects of the procedure that has been tightened up since.
	Many in Tanzania have remained outraged by our Prime Minister's casual approach. A letter from leading Tanzanian non-governmental organisations said:
	"We ... are convinced that the radar is too expensive for Tanzania to afford, and that we do not have the military capacity to make good use of the equipment in question."
	The NGOs questioned the degree of scrutiny that the Tanzanian Cabinet and Parliament had given to the deal. Tellingly, they said:
	"We are thankful to the Bretton Woods Institutions for showing concern for the people of Tanzania by opposing the deal".
	They called for a full public inquiry.
	Above all, it was astonishing that the Government cast aside criterion 8 of the consolidated European Union and national arms export licensing criteria. I remind the House that the Prime Minister sent his Ministers scurrying throughout Europe to secure the criteria, which outline the things that a Government must take into account when deciding whether to issue an export licence.
	Criterion 8 states that a Government must consider whether a proposed export would help or hamper the sustainable development of a recipient country. It explicitly states that decisions should be taken
	"in the light of information from relevant sources such as"
	the World Bank and the IMF—the very organisations that condemned the deal. Why, when the consolidated criteria explicitly set out a requirement of consultation with bodies such as the World Bank and the IMF, did the Government not only pointedly ignore those bodies' recommendations, but grant the licence before the bodies had even had time to deliver their full conclusions? In the light of that, let us hear today why the British Government concluded that spending £28 million—more than a quarter of the value of UK aid to Tanzania—on an outdated and unsuitable radar system did not completely contradict the very guidelines that they had so warmly embraced?

Hugh Bayley: Surely the hon. Gentleman misleads the House if he suggests that British aid was used—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should beware. We choose our words very carefully in the House. Perhaps he would like to rephrase that.

Hugh Bayley: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that British aid was used to buy the system, or, indeed, that British aid should be cut as a result of the Tanzanian Government's decision to buy the system? Tanzania is achieving improvements against the millennium development goals, but that progress would be lost if we stopped giving it aid.

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that we have strongly supported giving British aid to Tanzania. However, it is right for the House to take account of the fact that the deal caused the Tanzanian Government to incur a debt of some £28 million. That debt must be paid back at the same time that the UK taxpayer is giving aid to Tanzania. Although the two payments are not directly related, I am making an important point about the way in which the debt was contracted, given the importance of having confidence in the system of budgetary support.

Hugh Bayley: The hon. Gentleman, speaking as the shadow Secretary of State for International Development, says that he opposes the decision taken by the Tanzanian Government, as I do. However, what aspect of Britain's international development policy towards Tanzania would he change?

Andrew Mitchell: Given that the hon. Gentleman says that he, like me, opposes the deal, I am delighted that he has taken the trouble to come along to the debate. As I develop my case, his question will be very fully answered.

Norman Lamb: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Mitchell: I am going to make a little progress.
	If the Government argue that a judgment call was taken after lengthy consideration, will the Secretary of State explain why the Government acted without reference to the opinions of those best placed to comment? Will he explain whether the Government knew of the $12 million payment to a Swiss bank account when the export licences were granted? If the Government had known about that payment, would the export licences still have been granted?
	Nearly two weeks ago, I tabled a named day question to the Prime Minister for answer on 19 January. The question asked the Prime Minister when he was first informed of allegations that excessive payments had been made or agreed to secure the contract for a military air traffic control system in Tanzania. As of today, I have still not received a response to that question. It appears not only that the Prime Minister does not bother to attend debates in the Chamber, as we learned last week, but that he does not trouble himself to answer named day questions.
	When the Prime Minister was exercising his judgment on the matter, presumably he must have asked basic questions about the value of the export. Even if he did not do so, there were plenty of experts around at the time who were saying that the deal was grotesquely overpriced. All the warning signs of impropriety were there: a vastly inflated price, an unsuitable product and unorthodox financing. Does the Secretary of State accept that the Government made inadequate investigations into the propriety of the deal? Speaking in his capacity as the Government's anti-corruption Minister, does he accept that the situation represents a real failure and abdication of responsibility by the Government and the Prime Minister?

Norman Lamb: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Mitchell: No.
	A recent IMF report says that its staff should have been "more firm in opposing" the radar deal. Will the Secretary of State express similar regret on behalf of the Government? The people in the Government of Tanzania who pushed through the deal must bear the chief responsibility for wasting their impoverished country's money. However, those people were aided and abetted by the British Prime Minister. As the Secretary of State knows, a partnership for development imposes both rights and responsibilities. If one pledges to be the champion of good government, one has a responsibility to act when one sees instances of bad governance.

Norman Lamb: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Mitchell: In a moment.
	The former Foreign Secretary, the late and much respected Robin Cook, opposed the deal. In his memoirs, he describes how he supported the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood. He wrote:
	"Personally, I always thought she had a point, as it was never clear why we should be encouraging the sale of expensive long-range military radar to a country which with another hat on we had judged to be so poor and so indebted that it needed special measures to keep its economy afloat."
	He described how the Prime Minister was apparently very exercised with the right hon. Lady. He pointed out to the Prime Minister:
	"Clare is a formidable operator because she is so well briefed ... hats off to Clare, she reads all the telegrams and knows what is happening."
	The Prime Minister apparently responded:
	"Thanks, but I'll keep my hat on all the same."

Norman Lamb: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Mitchell: I give way to the very persistent hon. Gentleman.

Norman Lamb: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for finally giving way.
	As the hon. Gentleman tries to understand how this scandalous deal came to occur and why the export licence was granted, does he share my concern about the apparently excessively close relationship between BAE Systems and the Prime Minister—and perhaps other members of the Government? Does he share my worry about the role of Barclays bank in financing the deal? We have never got to the bottom of why on earth it granted a concessional loan.

Andrew Mitchell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to make a speech because he has done an immense amount of work on the matter. I hope that he will forgive me if I focus specifically on the way in which the Government reached their conclusions, and especially on the role of the Prime Minister.
	Like the Secretary of State, I celebrate the recent progress that has been made in Tanzania. I recognise the contribution that British support has made to that progress. However, that is not an excuse for this squalid episode. The Secretary of State is an honourable and decent man whom we respect. As he knows, Conservative Members support the principle of the international arms trade treaty to which the amendment refers. He is fair and open-minded. I was delighted that he said during last Wednesday's International Development questions that he was considering our proposal for an independent aid watchdog to provide impartial scrutiny of the effectiveness of British aid at reducing poverty. He and I share a commitment to tackling the scourge of corruption in the developing world. He recently starred in a DVD about corruption, produced by the Department for International Development, called "Crimes of the Establishment". At the time of the affair, he was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development, so perhaps he will tell the House whether, at the time, he sided with the Prime Minister or his departmental boss, the Secretary of State for International Development. I do not doubt that he will feel uncomfortable tonight in having to justify to the House the Government's decision to authorise that squalid deal.
	We used this Opposition day to raise the subject because there are important wider questions at issue, including questions about policy coherence across Whitehall, and the strength of DFID's voice in battles with other Departments. The affair certainly raises questions about the Government's respect for the Bretton Woods institutions, and it challenges the Prime Minister's rhetoric on Africa and development. Just months before approving the deal, the Prime Minister said that Africa was
	"a scar on the conscience of the world".
	Events such as those under discussion threaten to undermine public support for development and aid. They make the Government's promise of an ethical foreign policy seem like hot air.

Bill Wiggin: My hon. Friend is making inquiries and posing questions, but is the House to believe that this is merely the tip of a rather murky iceberg, and that we should be looking for evidence of other, similar deals?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend may well be a conspiracy theorist, but tonight I want to make my case about the Tanzanian deal, pure and simple.

Andrew George: Further to the previous intervention, the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) said a moment ago that the deal raises wider questions. It raises the issue of parallels, and in order to benchmark the Tanzanian deal, surely he has to draw a parallel with the Saudi Arabian deal, which I think is—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when I made my remarks on that topic—

Andrew George: I was.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Well, then he will have heard what I said.

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) will forgive me if I say no more on that point.
	It is no good the Government simultaneously negotiating debt relief, paid for by hard-working taxpayers, and allowing the Governments of poor countries irresponsibly to saddle their citizens with further illegitimate debt.

Pete Wishart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Mitchell: I will, for one last time.

Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way once again. Is not the truly worrying and really reprehensible part of the whole sorry story the role of questionable third-party individuals and the payments into Swiss bank accounts?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman will know that that matter is currently before the Serious Fraud Office, which will no doubt report in due course.
	It is profoundly unattractive to see the Government careering around the world signing high-minded anti- corruption declarations in international forums, while sanctioning questionable deals back in No. 10. We Opposition Members say that the deal was bad for Tanzania. It undermines public confidence in international development and should never have been agreed by the Prime Minister. Tonight, we look to the Secretary of State to assure the House and the international development community that such events should not, and will not, take place again.

Hilary Benn: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"notes that it would be inappropriate to comment on allegations of corruption in connection with the sale of a radar system to Tanzania in light of the current investigation by the Serious Fraud Office; notes the great progress made by Tanzania since 2002 in achieving debt relief, poverty reduction and public service reform; notes that the decision to grant an export licence for the air traffic control system was taken after due consideration of the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria; acknowledges that that decision took place after full discussion at Cabinet level; further notes that the UK subsequently established its own cross-Whitehall methodology for the assessment of applications against Criterion 8 of the consolidated criteria and was subsequently instrumental in establishing a shared methodology with its EU partners; and further notes the Government's efforts to promote an International Arms Trade Treaty.".
	I welcome this opportunity to respond to the speech of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), because the decision taken by the Tanzanian Government some eight years ago to buy an air traffic control radar system, the UK Government's decision to grant an export licence for it, and the basis for those decisions, raise important issues that the House will wish to explore, and we shall do so tonight.
	I shall begin by setting out some of the history. In 1999, the Government of Tanzania signed a contract with BAE Systems for a combined civilian and military-use radar system. The following year, BAE applied for two export licences for the system. In February 2001, a World Bank report was released, which concluded that the system offered poor value for money and was unsuitable for Tanzania's needs. The World Bank subsequently asked the International Civil Aviation Organisation for a more detailed report. In November 2001, that ICAO report raised concerns about the project and recommended a further report. At the same time, Tanzania reached completion point under the heavily indebted poor countries initiative, and received $3 billion of debt relief, in a package from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. In December 2001, the export licence was approved by the Department of Trade and Industry—I shall come back to that point later.
	In February 2002, the UK decided to withhold £10 million in budget support from Tanzania because of concerns about the purchase. In May, the second ICAO report raised further concerns about value for money and the balance between civilian and military use.

Norman Lamb: On that final report by the ICAO, there were many requests for it to be published at the time, but the Tanzanian Government refused. The British Government had sight of it, but as far as I am aware, it has never been published. Its conclusions were described to me by an official at the World Bank as a bombshell. Will the right hon. Gentleman do everything in his power to make sure that the report is now published?

Hilary Benn: I concur with what the hon. Gentleman says; as far as I am aware, the report has not been published, and the Government of Tanzania expressed their view, at the time, about whether it should be published or not. I am telling the House about what the report said. Its import was extremely clear, and I have just referred, in summary, to what it had to say.
	In July 2002, the then Secretary of State for International Development, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), met President Mkapa, who outlined the steps taken by the Government of Tanzania to improve financial management, and at that point it was decided to continue to provide budget support. The sale went ahead and the system was installed. It continues to operate today, although the Government of Tanzania subsequently decided not to proceed with the purchase of the second phase of the system.

Tobias Ellwood: I know that I am referring to events that did not happen on his watch, but is the Secretary of State aware of the size of the Tanzanian air force? There are nine aeroplanes—six MiG-1s and three MiG-17s—and 10 Bell Huey helicopters. What on earth were the Government doing, giving export orders to Tanzania and selling it a civil/military-operation air traffic control system that it did not need, and that was four times too expensive, and four times larger than was required?

Hilary Benn: I bow to the hon. Gentleman's expert knowledge of the Tanzanian air force and its equipment, but I want to correct him on one point: the sale of the air traffic control system was made by BAE Systems. The Government's job was to take a decision on the licence—

Tobias Ellwood: The export licence.

Hilary Benn: Yes, the export licence. I shall come to that point in a moment. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman has to acknowledge that the decision to purchase the air traffic control system was made by the Government of Tanzania.

Daniel Kawczynski: The question that the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) posed is important, and with all respect to the Secretary of State, I do not think that he answered it. Will he ensure that the World Bank report is published, so that the House can see it?

Hilary Benn: As I said to the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb)—and I think that he was referring to the ICAO report, not the World Bank report, as the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) says—my understanding is that the Government of Tanzania did not agree the publication of the ICAO report, and we should respect the view that they took on the subject at the time.

Kevan Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the use of the radar system was not just military, as was implied earlier, but civilian, too? Today, the Tanzanian Government receive revenue from the use of the system.

Hilary Benn: My understanding is that that is the case—the Government of Tanzania receive revenue from the system, and certainly the system was a dual-use piece of equipment.

Tobias Ellwood: rose—

Hilary Benn: If I may, I shall just make a little progress, and then I shall happily give way again.
	Finally, following allegations of corruption, the Serious Fraud Office, as the House is aware, initiated an investigation, which is still under way. The sale has been debated in the House; it has been examined by the Quadripartite Committee; it has been covered extensively in the media; and it was referred to in books by the late Robin Cook and by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood. I want to address directly the concerns that have been expressed, which relate to three issues. First, how effectively was the export licensing process applied in this particular case, and how effective a process is it in general? Secondly, I want to deal with allegations of corruption and, thirdly, the impact that all of this has had on development in Tanzania.

Norman Lamb: The Secretary of State has rightly identified the key issues, but will he confirm whether he shared the concerns of many other people? I am not sure whether he was a junior Minister in the Department at the time, but did he share concerns about the grant of the export licence? It was abhorrent to most people that it was granted.

Hilary Benn: History is recorded by the participants, and there was a debate in the Government—it will not shock the House to learn that that was the case. As for the Department's view, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood was Secretary of State at the time, and I was a loyal and supportive Under-Secretary when the Government made a decision about the licence. There was then a collective decision, which it was—and is—the duty of all members of the Government to support. The hon. Gentleman understands that extremely well. I want to deal with the licensing process, because the key issue is the application of criterion 8 on sustainable development.

Andrew Mitchell: The right hon. Gentleman has very nearly answered the question, reinforced by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), of which side he took in the debate. Will he confirm that he was against the granting of the consents at the time?

Hilary Benn: First, I have made my view clear and, secondly, I do not propose to give a blow-by-blow account, even for the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), for whom I have the greatest respect, of the discussions that take place in all Governments, at all times, about all decisions that are reached. He knows that, and I know that.
	May I tell the hon. Gentleman that his strictures—I listened carefully to what he had to say—sit uncomfortably with the Conservatives' record when they were in government? It would not be right to hold this debate without acknowledging that fact. How did his party apply criterion 8? The answer is that there was no criterion 8, because the previous Government did not have any published UK criteria for assessing licensing decisions, which is why one of the first acts of the Labour Government after their election in 1997 was to introduce those criteria. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood introduced the International Development Act 2002 to protect our aid budget from costs such as the scandalous spending on the Pergau dam. A little humility on the hon. Gentleman's part is therefore required.

Clare Short: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Has a licence ever been refused because it breached criterion 8? In my view, that licence did so absolutely, but I understand that there has been some tidying-up in the Department. Has a licence ever been refused, because it breached criterion 8?

Hilary Benn: One licence was refused on the grounds of criterion 8, in direct answer to the right hon. Lady's question.

Pete Wishart: What is the Secretary of State's view of the so-called middlemen—Mr. Vithlani and Mr. Somaiya—who are rumoured to have paid up to $12 million into a Swiss bank account as part of the deal?

Hilary Benn: I, too, read the report in  The Guardian, and those matters are the subject of investigation by the SFO. For reasons that the hon. Gentleman will understand, I do not propose to comment on them, as it would not be appropriate to do so.

David Taylor: rose—

Hilary Benn: I will give way to my hon. Friend, but then I would like to make some progress.

David Taylor: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. Will he confirm that in the murky world of international arms deals, 1 per cent. commission is generally regarded as appropriate, and the Export Credits Guarantee Department automatically regard any commission of more than 5 to 10 per cent. as ultra-questionable?

Hilary Benn: That is my understanding of the approach adopted by the ECGD, which was not involved, as the House will know, in this particular case. However, because those allegations were made about the deal, it is right and proper that they should be investigated.
	Criterion 8 requires the Government to consider whether the export will
	"seriously undermine the economy or seriously hamper the sustainable development of the recipient country".
	The export licensing process also involves consideration of conflict, human rights and other issues, but criterion 8 is most relevant to this particular case. The Government take their responsibilities on arms export licensing very seriously, and they considered the application of the criterion carefully when the licence for the air traffic control system for Tanzania was considered. The issue was thoroughly discussed by the Departments involved and, in the end, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry concluded that the licence should be approved. That is not to say that there were no concerns about the system and its suitability—there clearly were, as the World Bank and the ICAO reports made clear—but the test of criterion 8 is whether it is likely seriously to undermine the economy and sustainable development. The Government at the time judged that it would not do so and, looking back from this vantage point, it would be hard to argue that it did.

David Heath: There is not a criterion requiring the applicant to be a fit and proper person to hold a licence, but operative provision 10 of the EU code of conduct allows the Government to take other factors into account. In the light of what has been revealed about the general working practices of BAE Systems in a number of recent cases, is it still the Government's view that BAE is an appropriate recipient of a licence?

Hilary Benn: Every licence application, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, is considered on its merits at the time. If the Government operated any other system we would be rightly criticised. Each licence has to be considered on its own merits.

Daniel Kawczynski: The Secretary of State said that such a deal would not impinge dramatically on the economy of Tanzania, but that is not correct. The country's entire gross domestic product is only $10 billion, so £28 million is a huge sum. If we spent that percentage of our economy overnight on such a project it would have serious ramifications for the economy.

Hilary Benn: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but the test is as I described, and the judgment—

Peter Lilley: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Hilary Benn: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to respond first to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), I will gladly give way to him, before trying to make progress.
	In the end, a judgment has to be made and, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall return to the assessment of the impact and the progress that Tanzania has been able to make since then.

Peter Lilley: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, and I apologise for trying to intervene on him before he had done my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) the courtesy of answering his question.
	With respect, the Secretary of State dealt with the second and third aspects of criterion 8, but the first aspect states that the purchase should involve
	"the least diversion of human and economic resources"
	to armaments or, in this case, military equipment. It can scarcely be said that the least diversion was made if it was four times as much as was required to fulfil the country's needs.

Hilary Benn: I am very well aware of what the criterion says, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that the Government had to make a judgment about licensing decisions.
	It is worth bearing in mind that the decision to purchase the equipment was made by the Tanzanian Government. Foreign Minister Kikwete at the time said:
	"Our engineers prescribed the system which we required. We put the contract out to tender, four companies competed and we got BAe Systems delivering to our specification. This is the system we wanted."
	The Tanzania case did highlight a number of issues.

Norman Lamb: The argument is that criterion 8 should have ruled out the sale of the system because it seriously hampers the sustainable development of the country. I would argue that for a country heavily in debt, that must be the case, but if the right hon. Gentleman argues to the contrary, is he saying that criterion 8 needs to be amended? Surely the conclusion must be that it is wrong to grant an export licence for the sale of an inappropriate system that was not fit for purpose.

Hilary Benn: Criterion 8 does not exactly say that. There will be an opportunity to review the Export Control Act 2002 during the year, and the House has the opportunity this evening to debate the issue, as we are doing. We should always reflect on experience. In the end, the Government weighed these matters up and reached a view that the test in criterion 8 was not met. However, there are lessons to be learned, and I shall come on to those. I know that many Members are anxious to speak and I should like to make progress.
	First, there was a need for clearer guidance within Whitehall. We have now agreed guidance for officials when they look at the impact of proposed arms exports on a recipient country. The principle that sustainable development must be taken into account in licensing decisions was enshrined in the Export Control Act 2002, which is one of the toughest licensing systems in the world. The House should recognise that. DFID continues to play an active part in the licensing process. The Export Control Act is due for review this year. The Department of Trade and Industry will lead the process, consulting widely with other Departments, Parliament and civil society. One important area that we will look at is the activities of arms brokers, how well the current controls are working and whether they need to be strengthened.
	The second question that we need to ask ourselves is how we continue to ensure, as a major exporter of defence equipment and as a major international donor, that UK arms exports do not undermine development. That is what we are concerned about. We know that excessive spending on arms can divert money away from health and education, and irresponsible transfers can be used to ignite violence.
	Nevertheless, all countries have a right to provide for their legitimate defence and security needs, and those of their citizens. For that they need suitable equipment, and few developing countries have the means to manufacture that equipment. Most are dependent on arms imports. In the circumstances, what we can do is to have the right framework for taking decisions about UK licensing decisions, but to recognise that that is not good enough if other countries do not follow the same approach. That is why the UK has been leading the campaign for an international agreement, in the shape of an arms trade treaty, which would benefit everyone and which would also have the power to stop arms transfers that fuel violent conflict, particularly in the world's poorest countries.
	I turn to the second area of concern: corruption.

John Bercow: Does the Secretary of State believe in—and if he does, will he press for—the registration of brokers?

Hilary Benn: As the hon. Gentleman knows, extra-territoriality currently applies to certain brokering activities abroad relating—from memory—to weapons of mass destruction, instruments of torture and brokering that contravenes international arms embargoes. At the time we said that we wanted to see how the new arrangements worked. Part of the purpose of the review of the legislation is to give the House the opportunity to reflect on that. If the world did more to control the flow of small arms and light weapons, which are principally responsible for the terrible death toll in developing countries, I am sure the whole House would welcome that.
	On the allegations of corruption, I am, of course, aware of them but as I said, I cannot comment on the details of an ongoing SFO inquiry. However, I can assure the House that the Government are co-operating fully, and that the Tanzanian authorities have also extended full co-operation, indicating their seriousness in trying to combat corruption.
	As in many low income countries, there is corruption in Tanzania, but progress has been made in combating it and in improving accountability. Tanzania is currently one of the top rated low income countries in the World Bank's country policy and institutional assessment, and Tanzanians surveyed in 2006 felt that corruption in their country was declining.

Susan Kramer: The right hon. Gentleman has said in the past that where there is corruption—I cannot quote his words exactly—there is someone who accepts the bribe and a party that offers the bribe, who is equally culpable. Does he agree that any instance where the UK Government are seen to accept corruption by the briber undermines any attempt to deal with corruption in any country?

Hilary Benn: We do not accept corruption. That is the very reason that we passed legislation—not legislation that we found on the statute book in 1997 when we came into office—to make bribing a foreign official a criminal offence in this country.

Daniel Kawczynski: How would the right hon. Gentleman react to the recent comments from President Mbeki of South Africa, who alleges that we have been involved in corruption, so we are on a less sound footing for having a go at African countries that are involved in corruption?

Hilary Benn: I do not know who the hon. Gentleman means when he says "we", but if he is talking about the Government, I emphatically reject the charge that has been made. What I would say to people who have made comment—I must be careful here, in view of the strictures on referring to it—is that one decision in relation to one case does not make a Government policy. In a moment I shall point out some of the things that we are doing to tackle the problem of corruption arising out of the legislation that we have passed.

Kevan Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Hilary Benn: For the last time, as I know that many hon. Members want to speak.

Kevan Jones: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Does he agree that there is confusion about the Government's role, and that some hon. Members think that the Government were involved in the negotiation of the deal between the Tanzanian Government and BAE Systems? The role of the Government was to grant the export licence.

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend is right. As I explained to the House, that was indeed the role of the Government. The decision to purchase was the Government of Tanzania's. The decision to sell was BAE's.
	The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield rightly drew attention to the impact of an increasingly independent media in Tanzania, which has highlighted a number of alleged cases. That will see the fight against corruption in Tanzania intensify and gather pace in 2007. The Government of Tanzania will table new, strengthened anti-corruption legislation before the next Session of Parliament. Parliament is also considering a draft Freedom of Information Act.
	The Government of Tanzania have just launched the second phase of their national anti-corruption strategy. That sits alongside the public sector reforms currently under way, which President Kikwete spoke about during his recent visit, and which have steadily improved the accountability of Government and the services that they provide to their citizens. These reforms are supported by DFID. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood for her work in that regard.
	Reforms include public service pay reform, streamlining planning and budgeting, and increasing accountability. Tax reforms have increased revenue in Tanzania. It is encouraging that Tanzania has managed to lift tax revenues from 11 per cent. of gross domestic product in 2000 to 14 per cent. in 2005. Public financial management reform has improved expenditure control, allocating resources to sectors in line with national plans, and strengthening auditing and procurement. That reduces opportunities for corrupt practice.

Pete Wishart: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Hilary Benn: I shall make progress. I have been generous in giving way.
	Reforming procurement is particularly important in a case such as the one under discussion. The solution to concerns about the suitability of equipment, value for money, affordability or potential corruption is for countries to have sufficient capacity and their own procedures in place to deal with these matters themselves. That is the solution. In the case of Tanzania, these reforms are important individually, but they also complement one another in bringing about a transformation of the public service as a whole—one that is better able to deliver for citizens and in which the Government are held to account. In Tanzania, we are seeing increasing demands from citizens in rural areas for greater sanctions against local officials who misuse resources. We are seeing demands for schools, clinics, water and roads. We have seen increased public demand for accountability. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield mentioned the recent demonstration about the radar purchase, in particular, that was organised by Opposition parties in Dar es Salaam. The media have covered the issue, and civil society has added its voice to calls for a thorough investigation. All that demonstrates that in the case of Tanzania, pressure to investigate allegations of corruption in such cases is domestic as well as international. We should welcome that.
	On international action, the UK has ratified the UN convention against corruption and promoted the very successful extractive industries transparency initiative. We are setting up the governance and transparency fund to help those working to improve transparency, we have established the international corruption group, and we are taking on additional police officers working with the City of London and Metropolitan police. Why? It is to increase our capacity to investigate bribery, corruption and money laundering.

Pete Wishart: Are not the Government in danger of losing some of their legitimacy in lecturing African countries about corruption when the Prime Minister's own chief fundraiser is being questioned about perverting the course of justice?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is trespassing considerably on the good will of the House by trying to extend the debate in that way.

Hilary Benn: I am full of good will, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but even mine has been exhausted by the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
	We have also had some successes. In one case, we returned funds to Nigeria that were brought into the UK in a suitcase. In another, thanks to the legislation that we put on to the statute book and the swift work of the police, to whom I pay tribute, in freezing assets that had been purchased with money that had come from Nigeria, the courts ruled just before Christmas that some of those assets could be sold so that the funds could be returned to the people of Nigeria.
	I want to turn to the impact of all this on Tanzania. While the concerns about the cost of the system were not sufficient to warrant refusal of the licence under criterion 8, as a donor we were concerned about the wisdom of the purchase and expressed those concerns to the Tanzanian Government, particularly as regards governance and financial management. It was the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood who did so. Having discussed all this with the Government, and having received assurances that they would not proceed with purchase of the second phase of the system, we continued with our aid programme. UK aid to Tanzania has doubled from £60 million to £120 million over the past four years and will continue to increase in future.
	With the help of aid from Britain and other donors, Tanzania has made very impressive progress in its efforts to reduce poverty in recent years. Spending on health and education has increased significantly, and spending on defence as a proportion of the Government's budget has declined. Dependence on donors has fallen from 49 per cent. of the Government's budget in 2005-06 to just 41 per cent. this year. Picking up the points made by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield about the difference that our development programme makes, we are seeing results. There are 8 million children in primary school in Tanzania today—up from 4 million in 2000. The goal of universal primary education is within touching distance, with an enrolment rate of 96 per cent. Infant mortality, which was stubbornly high in the 1990s, fell by a third in the five years to 2004. Child malnutrition has fallen. Malaria treatment and prevention has improved, and immunisation rates are high. Of course, there is much still to do, but there has been real progress in improving the lives of poor people.
	I have tried to set out the background to the case and the process by which decisions were taken at the time. There are lessons to be learned, and the review of the 2002 Act will allow us to do so. But in the end, the real solution, as we set out in the White Paper, is for us to work with developing countries to enable them to take the right decisions. These decisions should be taken by those who are ultimately responsible—the Governments and peoples of the countries themselves.

Lynne Featherstone: Liberal Democrat Members welcome this important debate on the sale of a radar system to Tanzania. There is a stench arising from this deal, just as there is from the al-Yamamah contract. Strangely, however, the Conservatives make no mention in their motion of BAE Systems as the alleged briber. The motion is narrowly defined and seems to seek to confine the debate to Tanzania. I have to assume that that is to avoid their hopelessly compromised position on the Saudi Arabian case.

Kevan Jones: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Lynne Featherstone: I will give way a couple of times, but we are very pushed for time.

Kevan Jones: The hon. Lady has made the very serious accusation that BAE Systems has used bribery. Is she going to produce some evidence of that in the course of the debate or leave it to the police?

Lynne Featherstone: I think that I said "alleged" bribery.

Clare Short: I should say to the House that the police came to see me and said that they have documents showing that it was bribery.

Lynne Featherstone: I thank the right hon. Lady for that very helpful intervention. I was being careful with my words but now, thanks to her, I can perhaps drop the "alleged".
	First, I wish to put on the record the extraordinary work of my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), whose pursuit of these matters has shone a light into what appears to be an extremely murky world. In an Adjournment debate on 25 June 2002, he laid out the case in detail with clarity and chilling accuracy. I will not repeat the history of that case, because it is already read into the record.
	There is a moral imperative here. If we are to retain any influence, reputation or credibility in world affairs, we must be squeaky clean ourselves. Despite the Secretary of State's defence of the decision to grant an export licence, somewhere between the Government, BAE and Barclays—perhaps all three—our reputation worldwide has been left in tatters. How can we tell other countries to live up to their obligations when $12 million lies in a Swiss bank account as testimony to corruption and bribery in those deals?
	At this particular time in history, when the world is moving, albeit slowly and painfully—as are we, as the Secretary of State said—to tackle defence contract corruption and is striving to introduce transparency, it is vital that the Government answer to their part in what seems to be a very nasty business. While the Serious Fraud Office must pursue its investigations without fear or favour, it is also right that these matters should come before this House.

David Taylor: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Lynne Featherstone: For the last time, because hon. Friends wish to speak.

David Taylor: The SFO obviously has to work within the code of practice of Crown prosecutors, which allows for the abandonment of cases in the national interest. Does the hon. Lady think that the national interest is less likely to be cited in cases involving countries with a national income per head of $400 a year than in countries with a national income per head of about £12,000 a year, as can be the case in oil-rich regimes such as Saudi Arabia?

Lynne Featherstone: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I sense a tendency to move further from the bounds of the motion, which the hon. Lady herself said has been expressed in narrow terms. That being said, that is the motion before the House.

Lynne Featherstone: The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) made a valid and interesting point.
	There are three strands to this scandal that I want the Government to account for tonight. The Secretary of State covered some of the ground, but not all. The first concerns the supply of a military air traffic system to one of the poorest countries in the world. One thing that the Secretary of State did not mention was whether he had had discussions with Tanzania as to the fact that only one third of the country would be covered by the system that it was purchasing. The system has been widely criticised, so I want the Government to clarify what questions they asked about the supply of such a system to the poorest of poor countries—as other hon. Members have said, a country to which we were sending aid. Was the actual need for a system discussed? Did the Government advise the Tanzanian Government about the appropriateness of such a system?
	Secondly, the allegations of corruption about the sale need to be tackled more thoroughly. The investigation into the air traffic control contract in Tanzania raises questions about the Government's integrity. Granting an export licence for the military air traffic control system is a scandal. Selling such a system, which costs millions of dollars, to one of the most heavily indebted countries is also a scandal. The Tanzanian air traffic control system deal flies in the face of all that we claim that we want to achieve in aiding poor countries.
	One part of the Government has been providing debt relief on the ground that Tanzania's debt was unsustainable, while another part of the Government appeared to encourage the same country to take on £28 million of debt for an air traffic control system that did not work for a military area that covers only one third of the country.
	As the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) said, the International Civil Aviation Organisation put the case plainly. It stated:
	"If it is to be used primarily for civil air traffic control, the system is not adequate and is too expensive."
	The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund estimated that a suitable system would cost between $5 million and $10 million.
	What comprised the Tanzanian air force? As we have heard, it is small. How many military planes did it have? Did the Government ask that question at the time? Were the Government aware of a disparity between the size and sophistication of the system that Tanzania was purchasing and its needs? Even if the Tanzanian Government needed the system, were discussions held in which our Government pointed out that it was not the most appropriate system?
	There are many questions about the funding of the sale. On 15 May 2002, the then Secretary of State for International Development said in Parliament:
	"Somehow, a loan from Barclays bank, which is funding the project—there is no way that Barclays can provide concessional funding—has been reported to the IMF as being concessional, so the project squeaked through, which is very odd."—[ Official Report, 15 May 2002; Vol. 385, c. 763.]
	If that was the case, surely it was fraud. In 2002, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk referred to "being told" that bungs were paid to oil the wheels of the deal; we now know that there were $12 million bungs. What did the Government know? Did they know anything about it? Did they know at the time? If not, when did they know?
	The Government have tried to assure us time and again, and stated that they promote responsible business conduct. Only last Wednesday, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), the Secretary of State for International Development spoke about the UK anti-corruption plan, and how the Government intend to promote responsible business conduct in developing countries and support international efforts to fight corruption. I am sure that hon. Members of all parties would support that.
	Moreover—and astonishingly—the Secretary of State, as champion of combating corruption, stated that he was not consulted about the decision to drop the investigation into BAE and the deal in Saudi Arabia. Will he be consulted about the issues that surround the Tanzanian deal? The Secretary of State replied on Wednesday that he thought the case had no relevance to DFID, but the Department's White Paper, "Making governance work for the poor", makes it extremely clear that it has.
	Of course the BAE Eurofighter sale, which we are not discussing this evening, has a strong connection with the sale of a radar system to Tanzania because both appear to come from the same questionable background. Both issues have a connection to DFID. Has the Secretary of State for International Development been consulted about the Tanzanian case? What was discussed with DFID about supplying such an extravagant system to a country into which we were and are still pouring aid? What role will DFID play in the investigation?
	The whole mess runs the risk of undermining the Prime Minister's commitment to poverty reduction in Africa. Corruption is a key element in economic underperformance and a major obstacle to development and alleviating poverty. The Secretary of State said:
	"Good governance is about ensuring the rule of law... Bad governance can be caused or made worse by the actions of rich countries and their companies. For every bribe taken - there has to be a bribe giver; for every stolen dollar that is spirited out of a developing country, there has to be a bank account somewhere for it to go into."—[ Official Report, 26 October 2006; Vol. 450, c. 1738-9.]
	We now know where the account is—Switzerland.
	The diversion of funds through corrupt practices undermines attempts by Tanzanians to achieve higher levels of economic, social, and environmental welfare. Although I welcome the Secretary of State's comments about improvements in Tanzania, we must be above suspicion in our dealings. A key plank in our international development strategy must be combating corruption overseas. We are already bound by the United Nations convention against corruption and the OECD convention on combating bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions. We encourage other countries to adopt and enforce those laws. We need to encourage our Government to implement them.
	The modus operandi of BAE Systems and its predecessor companies in Tanzania, South Africa, Chile or Saudi Arabia consistently appears to go against the principles in those international conventions. The DFID White Paper states that corruption damages economic growth by increasing the cost of doing business. It siphons off resources that should go into public services and undermines the accountability of political leaders and officials to their citizens.
	The Attorney-General ran a coach and horses through those rightly high aspirations when he decided to stop the investigation. The example of BAE in Tanzania shows that the Government are preaching, but perhaps not practising what they preach. Did No.10 force the licence for the Tanzania deal through the Cabinet, as has been reported? That is a crucial question.
	Thirdly, let us consider the investigation by the Serious Fraud Office, which should be commended on its determination to investigate the sale of a military air traffic control system to Tanzania. It is extraordinary to Liberal Democrat Members that that export licence was granted. How can we tell other countries to live up to their obligations when our name is being dragged through the international mud? To do so would be rank hypocrisy.

Hugh Bayley: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Lynne Featherstone: No, I shall not because hon. Members of all parties wish to speak.
	The Serious Fraud Office must now be free to investigate. We must restore decency and transparency to Government. Lord Goldsmith stated last week that he told the director of the Serious Fraud Office that he should vigorously pursue current investigations, including several other cases against BAE. He also assured the House of Lords:
	"We need to do all that we can to make sure that he has the resources in order to do so."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 18 January 2007; Vol. 688, c. 779.]
	I should be grateful if the Minister for Science and Innovation confirmed that extra resources will be given to the SFO to deal properly with the investigation.
	We need to erase the stain on our reputation. Apart from our continuing loss of the moral high ground, it damages our reputation and ability to attract business. Let us hope that the Government and the investigation will eventually enable us, once again, to be looked up to as an example of good practice and good behaviour.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the House that there is a 12-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, and that it operates from now on.

Roger Berry: This is an interesting debate. It is the first time ever that I can recall the Conservatives asking for time to debate arms export policy. However, they are a little out of date in selecting a topic that was a matter of debate in other quarters five years ago. I know the views of some of the Conservative defence team, because they have served on the Quadripartite Committee, and if they heard some of the comments made here tonight, they would not be too pleased.
	I want to focus on the serious matter before the House. I have served as Chair of the Quadripartite Committee since 2001. The first report that we produced, in July 2002, looked in detail at the specific case of the export of military air traffic control systems to Tanzania, and the implications of the case in relation to the application of criterion 8. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) clearly drew on that report in his speech. I want to concentrate on those two issues.
	I do not believe that the House ought to speculate on the outcome of the Serious Fraud Office investigation. My view has always been that all such investigations should be allowed to continue their course until the appropriate time when a decision is made whether to prosecute or not. I am sorry that certain hon. Members have speculated wildly in the debate about matters that we cannot resolve here tonight. Nor should we try to do so; let us concentrate on Government policy. That is the purpose of Opposition day debates, and this one is about Tanzania and criterion 8.
	I shall not repeat at length the points that have already been raised in relation to these matters, but I want to tell the House how the Quadripartite Committee felt about the issues, which we discussed at some length. We identified a number of causes for concern. Personally, I was not convinced by the wisdom of the Government's decision, but I want accurately to reflect the specific concerns that were raised, and the Committee's final view. Our report stated:
	"In...November 2001, the International Civil Aviation Organisation told the World Bank that the proposed export would not be adequate for civil air traffic control purposes, and was too expensive for Tanzania's needs."
	The World Bank, prior to approving HIPC—heavily indebted poor countries—debt relief for Tanzania in that same month, noted that Tanzania had undertaken to reconsider the suitability of the air traffic control system.
	Criterion 8 requires the Government specifically to take into account information from the World Bank. Our Committee therefore made the obvious comment, that
	"it is not at all clear why a decision on the licence application was made on 21 December 2001, before the results of the discussions between the Government of Tanzania, the World Bank and the International Civil Aviation Organisation on whether the BAE system best met Tanzania's needs were known."
	The criticism there is clear: there were ongoing discussions involving the World Bank about the system, and the decisions to grant the two licences were made before there had been time to consider the outcome of those discussions.
	When the Government gave evidence to the Committee, reference was made to the fact that Tanzania was, self-evidently, a sovereign state. The point was made that it therefore had the right to decide what air traffic control system it wanted to buy. That is absolutely true, but the debate is not about what system it should or should not buy. That has nothing to do with us. The question is: what military air traffic control system we should or should not license for export? That is our decision, and that is why criterion 8 exists. Why would criterion 8 exist in the first place, if the European Union did not feel that it should take into account the impact of such decisions on sustainable development, notwithstanding the fact that Tanzania is a sovereign state that has the right to buy whatever equipment it can?
	A third criticism—and the final one that I shall mention, given the time—is that when the Quadripartite Committee investigated this matter, we were assured that a serious cost-benefit analysis had been undertaken. We asked the Government for a copy of it on 27 March 2002. We eventually received a reply 18 months later, on 28 August 2003. The letter from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office stated:
	"The Committee's letter of 27 March 2002 requested a summary of the Government's internal analysis of this application. The Government has looked very carefully at this issue"—
	as they would, given that they had 18 months in which to do so.
	"It has concluded that it would not be possible to provide the Committee with a meaningful and balanced summary of the analysis that protected the commercial confidence of other parties, and which did not at the same time risk harming the frankness and candour of internal discussion. Such information is exempt from disclosure under Exemptions 2 and 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information...the Government considers that the Code of Practice does apply to the provision of information to Select Committees."
	That raises some important Select Committee issues. Members of the Quadripartite Committee can see, in strictest confidence and restricted circumstances, end-user certificates for all arms applications, however sensitive. There has been no breach of that security. We were told, however, that we could not see the cost-benefit analysis on which the decision to grant the licence was based, and that the code of practice on Government information does not apply to Select Committees. We cannot understand that, and I will continue to pursue that matter.
	The issue goes beyond the specific decision to how Committees can scrutinise such decisions. The Quadripartite Committee has previously raised the issue of prior scrutiny of decisions—scrutinising decisions before they are formally made. We were told that we could not do that and that it would not be right, as the Executive must make the final decision. Of course the Executive must make the final decision, but the entire media were engaged in that debate: it was no great secret that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) had a different view from that of the Government. Everyone was discussing the issue, but the Quadripartite Committee, which was set up by the House to scrutinise arms exports, was not allowed prior scrutiny, which might have been helpful in ensuring that a sensible decision was made.
	Having said that, the Committee concluded—this is my final quotation, but it is important for the record—that,
	"we must recognise that assessments in terms of Criterion Eight are about whether the proposed export has the potential  seriously to hamper sustainable development in the recipient country or  seriously undermine its economy, rather than about whether it is supportive of sustainable development."
	That is not a distinction that many Members have made this evening. The Committee continued:
	"Although there was a clear  prima facie case for considering the application under Criterion Eight, we accept that the decision to allow the licence was a 'judgement call'"—
	I think I heard that earlier this evening, so somebody has been reading this carefully—
	"and that it was reached after careful and prolonged consideration."
	Although I think that that was the wrong decision, I must inform the House that not only all Labour Members, but all Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members on the Quadripartite Committee unanimously signed up to that statement that the decision was a "judgement call", and that it was reached after "careful and prolonged consideration".

Clare Short: It seems to me—and this is very much an issue for the Secretary of State as well—that if the contract did not breach criterion 8, criterion 8 is not worth having. There is no question but that the decision damaged the development of Tanzania, and if the provision can be read in a way that allows such a decision through, it needs rewriting. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

Roger Berry: I believe that the matter needs to be revisited seriously, and I want to deal with that now.
	The Government's amendment to the Opposition motion refers to developing a "methodology" for dealing with criterion 8 issues. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister were to comment further on that in his reply. I am aware of the user guide and that the UK Government have again played a leading role in the European Union on the issue. I have read the user guide, which provides some helpful ideas about how to apply criterion 8, but I would not go as far as to call it a "methodology". When we review the export control Acts and continue to debate criterion 8, I hope that further time can be given to that issue. If there is a methodology, and I have missed it, I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State ensured that we see a copy at some stage.
	The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood asked how many times criterion 8 has been used to reject an export licence application by the UK. The answer is once, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said. That raises an interesting question: why, since 2003, have the French Government refused 42 applications on criterion 8 grounds, while we have refused one?
	Before speculation becomes rife in the Chamber, let us consider that important question. When a licence is refused, a denial notification must be circulated among the other European Union member states. Given that if France refuses a licence a denial notification must be circulated among the other EU members, the Government presumably know on what grounds it has refused licences on 42 occasions applying criterion 8 grounds. I should be grateful if they could tell us that at some stage, and also tell us why the United Kingdom has refused only on one occasion.
	I have referred to the user guide which currently provides best practice for the interpretation of criterion 8. In fairness, it should be said that that was initiated by the United Kingdom presidency. Does the United Kingdom follow the best practice in that user guide, and what difference has it made? Why does the guide state that the guidelines
	"are intended to share best practice in the interpretation of Criterion 8... Member states are fully entitled to apply their own interpretations"?
	I believe that criterion 8 is at the heart of the matter. This evening Members have tried to roll together newspaper information about alleged bribery and corruption, criterion 8, Tanzania and all sorts of stuff, but there are distinct issues, and the issue of criterion 8 is fundamental.

David Heath: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Roger Berry: Yes, I will.

David Heath: I support what the hon. Gentleman has said about prior scrutiny. I understand that it still applies in Sweden and is no impediment to Swedish arms sales, and I therefore see no reason why the hon. Gentleman's Committee should not have prior scrutiny rights.
	The hon. Gentleman will now have time to make the rest of his speech.

Roger Berry: Time? Ah, I see. [Hon. Members: "You now have two minutes."] Forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am very slow.
	When the Quadripartite Committee has discussed prior scrutiny, we have not considered it to be our job to look at every licence application. What we have said is that when uniquely sensitive issues, particularly issues such as this, are in the public domain and there is public debate, it would be helpful if a joint Select Committee set up by the House to investigate were allowed to engage in such examination.
	In conclusion—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall have to suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he conclude his speech now. There was a slight glitch with the clocks, and despite the device employed by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), he is working according to my time and has clearly used his full entitlement.

Peter Lilley: I begin by declaring an interest. I shall shortly go to Tanzania as chairman of the globalisation and global poverty group to discuss development issues, including issues such as this, with Government officials and others, and to address the Democratic Union of Africa.
	Tanzania is one of the poorest countries in the world. I had the privilege of living there when I worked for the east African common market some years ago, and I know it to be a beautiful country with a warm people—but a people living under a cloud of poverty, disease and hunger that few of us in the House can imagine. We should remember, however, that it is in that context that we are discussing this issue.
	The House often discusses waste and misuse of money that occurs in this country, but that waste and misuse dents, at most, our prosperity. Waste and embezzlement of money in a country like Tanzania is a matter of life and death. It means diseases untreated, education forgone, and children going to bed hungry at night.
	That is why the accusations that have been made are so important, including those that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) made outside the House and which we look forward to hearing today. I pay tribute to her because she does not speak now with the benefit of hindsight, as is the case for some of us, but she had the courage and foresight to speak out about her concerns at the time, and to make them known publicly.
	I also have enormous respect for the right hon. Lady's successor, the current Secretary of State for International Development. He is a man of sea-green sincerity and absolute dedication to the cause of alleviating poverty. Today he responded with great candour, and coped with the embarrassing task of defending decisions for which he was not responsible, which he knows to be indefensible, and with which he undoubtedly disagreed at the time. I do not blame him for seeking what refuge he could find behind the investigation by the Serious Fraud Office. However, that will not stop us debating the issue today, because we are asking not about that SFO investigation, but about the Government's failure to investigate sufficiently, or act effectively upon, what they knew previously.
	An even flimsier defence is just to say, as the Government amendment does, that the decision was made after "due consideration" and
	"full discussion at Cabinet level".
	The issue is not whether it was discussed, but what conclusions were reached and why. Why did the Cabinet disregard the advice of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, ignore the concerns of the then Secretary of State, and push through licence approval before the World Bank had put its well-known criticisms into a recommendation that would have been difficult to reject?
	We know that Ministers did not conclude that this was a good deal for Tanzania. The ICAO had already advised that
	"The system, as contracted, is primarily a military system...If it is to be used primarily for civil air traffic control purposes, the proposed system is not adequate and is too expensive."
	At no stage has any Minister suggested otherwise. They have fallen back on what might be called the Pontius Pilate defence: "We knew it was a bad deal, and we suspected it was a dodgy deal, but we washed our hands of it and left it to the Tanzanians to decide"—the "sovereign decision" argument to which the hon. Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry) referred—"It's just too bad if the Tanzanians are being ripped off and the poor lose out as a result."
	I am certainly not accusing the Secretary of State of taking that position. He would be the last person to argue that we should turn a blind eye to bad governance and waste of resources. His recent White Paper is entitled not "Let's hope governance will work for the poor", but "Eliminating World Poverty: making governance work for the poor"—making it work for the poor, not for the big man in Africa or big business abroad. The White Paper is robust about aid being made conditional on good governance. It says:
	"The UK Government has a responsibility to make sure that UK aid money is used for the purpose for which it is intended. We take this very seriously."
	In 2001, Britain had just given Tanzania £35 million of direct budget support for poverty reduction, yet when Tanzania decided to spend £28 million on a contract that the ICAO said was primarily military, not adequate and too expensive, the Government simply washed their hands. Governments face a difficult dilemma if the only way in which they can react to waste and suspicions of corruption is by cutting off further aid intended to help reduce poverty, but on this occasion we could have prevented this dubious contract by refusing or at least delaying a licence, without cutting off future aid.
	The Secretary of State's White Paper goes on to say that donor Governments
	"need to be able to stop unscrupulous individuals or companies profiting from...paying bribes" ,
	and that
	"where domestic capacity is weak, international codes of practice can encourage companies to work legitimately".
	Yet instead of enforcing the combined European Union and national code of conduct on military exports, the Government simply glossed over it, or gave it the most liberal interpretation possible.
	The Government say that they had no evidence of corruption when the licence was given. We now know, of course, that 30 per cent. of the contract value was paid into a Swiss bank account, but the Government do not want us to talk about that now that we have some evidence. However, we do have the right to know whether Ministers asked themselves the obvious question at the time: why were the Tanzanians pressing ahead with a contract for something that they did not need and could have got cheaper elsewhere, and for which they had arranged some highly questionable finance—all against the advice of the ICAO, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and others? We know that the former Secretary of State asked herself that question, and that she reached the only conceivable answer: that someone had been offered big kick-backs. The deal stank—it reeked of corruption—but the Prime Minister persuaded other Ministers to hold their noses and let it through.
	We in this country talk a lot about governance. We lecture the Governments of developing countries, telling them that they must investigate, be transparent and hold Ministers to account, but the sad truth is that on this occasion, the suspicions fell on a British company. It was British Ministers who turned a blind eye; it was the British Government who rushed a decision through before the World Bank could publish its report; it was the British Government who ignored their own code of conduct. The words "mote" and "beam" spring to mind.
	Last year, I met one of the bravest men in Africa: John Githongo, the former anti-corruption tsar in Kenya, who tenaciously exposed massive corruption in the face of threats to his life and family. He said that Britain could still exert considerable moral influence—that anything that we did to highlight corruption and abuse would mobilise and strengthen the forces within African countries trying to clean up their systems. The sad truth is that this whole sorry episode will make it more difficult for the Secretary of State to exert that moral influence. I suspect that he would agree with me, were he in a position to do so.
	Although tomorrow's headlines will be captured by "cash for honours", I believe that the episode that we are discussing today will leave a darker stain on this Government's reputation. They put the well-being of poor people second to the interests of big business, undermined Britain's influence for good and set a damaging precedent for the future. The stain can be erased only if this House is prepared to do what we demand of others—may I respectfully suggest that it do so through its Select Committee on International Development?—and render the dealings of Government thoroughly transparent and hold Ministers, above all the Prime Minister, to account. It will be to the credit neither of this House nor this country if we let the matter rest as it stands.

Brian Jenkins: I sense that we are short of time, and given that many Members want to speak, I shall curtail my remarks. I shall avoid party political point scoring, try to avoid discussing the issue under investigation, and try not to upset my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, if possible.
	As has been said tonight, the system cost £28 million, and many Members felt that the money could have been better spent. That is undoubtedly so; however, I do not come to this debate with clean hands. If I had wanted a job in which I could keep my hands clean, I would have worked in a laundry. We are working in politics, and on occasion, we must do things for the greater good. Such an attitude is sometimes lacking in this Chamber; instead, Members occasionally hawk their consciences around this place.
	A military system was not needed. We can say from this vantage point that a civil system could have been used, and provided at a lower price. However, and as the Secretary of State told us, we are dealing with an independent sovereign country. We might, and should, try to influence its decisions, and to do that we sometimes have to get a bit close—perhaps close enough to influence the take-up of the second phase.
	In looking into this situation, I dug out some information on the needs of Tanzania, which is surrounded by eight neighbours. The figures that we have been given tonight for the air force conflict with those that I received this afternoon. Tanzania has 29 combat aircraft, one transport squadron, two training squadrons, two helicopter squadrons, four air bases and 124 airports, 11 of which are paved. It has 750,000 visitors a year, and the number is growing. Imports are growing, as are exports. So the country may have felt that to stay in front in Africa it needed a system that would provide some status.
	One fact that I discovered struck me as a little odd: all the sailors, pilots and officers in Tanzania's forces are trained in China. The Chinese influence is growing. Was any consideration given to the possibility that if we did not provide the system, someone else would?

Clare Short: At the same time, there was an offer by the European Investment Bank to provide a modern civilian air traffic control system for all the east African countries, which would have helped tourism for all of them, at a massively lower price. An alternative was on offer.

Brian Jenkins: We must then ask why the country did not take that alternative offer —[ Laughter. ] No, I am not going down that route.
	Tanzania's growth rate is 5.6 per cent. The decision to grant the licence was made after much discussion. It was not the place of this Government to say what the Government of Tanzania should do. After this episode, our Government strengthened their procedures further, because they admit that they got it wrong. Although aid was withheld for a short period it was resumed, and progress by Tanzania confirms the wisdom of that decision.
	We would all prefer that the money spent on the military were spent on improving the welfare of the people instead, but every country has the right to self-defence. I would not, in any circumstances, welcome or accept a licence for combat aircraft or tanks for a country in Tanzania's situation, but it had the right to decide that it needed a radar system—irrespective of the type of radar system. Let us divorce the need for the radar system from the type of radar system and concentrate on that point after the inquiry has taken place. When the inquiry has finished, we may have more evidence to discuss that point.
	When my hon. Friend the Minister winds up, I hope that he can tell us about the progress that has been made on criterion 8 with our European partners, or on an international arms trade treaty. I hope that he can also tell us which countries will pose the greatest challenge in trying to agree and enshrine such a treaty.

Clare Short: I am pleased that the squalid British Aerospace sale of a military air traffic control system to Tanzania has reached the Floor of the House. All the parties involved in the deal should be deeply ashamed, but it is not an issue for party-political point scoring. It is good that the debate has not proceeded on that level.
	The truth is that successive Governments of both parties go out of their way to promote British arms sales in a way that is unprincipled, is of no economic benefit to the UK, distorts our foreign policy and undermines our reputation. The case of the Tanzanian air traffic control system is a particularly sordid example of the UK's approach to arms sales. I am well aware—indeed, hopeful—that the investigation of the case by the Serious Fraud Office might result in criminal charges. That will be decided elsewhere. What is important here is for UK politicians to learn the lessons of the reality of UK arms sales policy and make real changes so that similar deals are not supported in future.
	To that end, I want to put on the record what I know of British Aerospace's contract to provide an overpriced, outdated and unnecessarily military radar system to Tanzania, and of the powerful support given to the deal by the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Trade and Industry, and by the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. Let us be clear: although the individuals holding those offices must take responsibility for the approach that they adopted, they were reflecting deeply held views and values in their respective Departments. The problem is systemic in nature, and that is what the House of Commons has to address.
	When the project was being discussed in Whitehall, I argued that it was clear that the deal was so useless and hostile to Tanzania's interests that it must have been made corruptly. I had no evidence at that time, but evidence has since emerged that large payments were made to secure the deal. That is especially shameful when what was being sold—to one of the poorest countries in the world—was a useless piece of military technology priced far above its real value. We must therefore ask the following question: if British Aerospace and senior UK politicians were willing to go to the lengths that they did to secure the Tanzania deal, how much further would they go when promoting arms sales worth billions of pounds?
	I became aware of the contract when the World Bank representative in east Africa objected to the proposed sale. Some officials who had served in the Department for International Development for many years were surprised that the project had come forward for a second time. I understand that there had been a proposal some years earlier for a military air traffic control system to cover the whole country, but it had been blocked because Tanzania simply could not afford it. Now it seemed that the same project was being split in two and put forward again as a two-stage project.
	The World Bank representative in east Africa was very concerned about the contract, as Tanzania was being considered for enhanced debt relief under the heavily indebted poor countries initiative. As a condition of debt relief, HIPC rightly imposes controls on future borrowing that require that it must be confined to concessionary lending—that is, aid lending not at market rates from organisations such as the World Bank, the African Development Bank and so on. It also imposes a ceiling even on concessionary lending.
	In this case, as has been noted, the loan was provided by Barclays bank which, as a commercial bank, was clearly incapable of providing a concessionary loan. Barclays colluded in this sordid project by inflating the size of the loan, it seems, and then pretending that it was concessionary in order to evade conditions set by the World Bank and the IMF. The smell given off by the project spread a long way, and Barclays has not been held to account, although the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), as his party's spokesman on international development at the time, tried to do something in that respect.
	As has been said, the World Bank representative in east Africa then decided to commission a report from the International Civil Aviation Organisation on the value of the deal to Tanzania. At the time it was argued by the DTI—and some people have repeated as much tonight—that Tanzania would earn money from the air traffic control fees and that the deal would therefore finance itself. As has been noted, the ICAO made it clear that the technology was old fashioned and expensive, that it would cover only half the country at best, and that it would not provide Tanzania with the air traffic control that it needed to develop its tourist industry. That development was very much in the country's economic interest.
	By contrast, as I have said, the European Investment Bank was offering a loan at a fraction of the projected cost. From memory, I believe that it put the cost of providing air traffic control to three or four east African countries at about £12 million. The technology had progressed to the point that a much cheaper and more effective civil system was available, and an EIB loan to purchase it was on offer.
	There is no doubt that Tanzania needed a new civilian air traffic control system to enhance its earnings from tourism. The British Aerospace system was an overpriced and old-fashioned military system that did not meet that need, as the ICAO made clear.

Robert Smith: The right hon. Lady is making a powerful analysis of what happened. She said that the DTI had come up with the idea that the project might be commercially beneficial to Tanzania. Did it undertake an empirical exercise and provide relevant figures, or did it merely assume that it was possible that some benefit might arise, and offer no figures in support of that assumption?

Clare Short: I am trying to make it clear to the House that we need to address a deep culture in our Government system. The DTI sees it as its duty to push all arms sales deals and will always find arguments for them. That is how it is and any incoming Government will face the same culture. We need to change it.
	When the events I was describing were taking place, the Department and I planned to offer Tanzania increased aid to help to fund a big new effort to provide free primary education for all children—it was great to hear the Secretary of State report an achievement figure of 96 per cent. It seemed wrong that our increased aid would finance that objectionable project. The hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) said that it would not. Of course it would. If we give money to a country that is buying a rotten project for which it has to pay in foreign currency, our increased aid is, in effect, funding the rotten project. We cannot turn away from that; we are implicated whatever we do.
	I made the decision to cut back our promised aid by £10 million and went to see President Mkapa—a man I greatly respect and who did a good job by his country. He told me that the contract had been signed before he came to office, a deposit had been paid and there was a penalty clause if Tanzania did not go ahead. I concluded that the best way forward for all concerned was for the UK to refuse a licence under criterion 8. As has been said, Robin Cook had raised the threshold for deals made by all EU countries to include consideration of whether an arms sale would affect sustainable development—a provision that had never been made previously. There is no question but that the project affected Tanzania's development and that it should have been refused under criterion 8. If anyone argues that it should not have been refused under that criterion, we have to change the wording to tighten up the criterion so that we adhere to the standard.

Susan Kramer: Is the right hon. Lady saying that after the presidential election the Tanzanian Government were interested in finding a way out of the contract? If so, that differs from statements we have heard that a sovereign Government wanted to make the purchase.

Clare Short: The hon. Lady makes an important point. President Mkapa was a technocrat and a fine President, but he was not politically powerful and he inherited the contract. If the UK had done the right thing by refusing a licence under criterion 8, he would have been a very happy man, but there were penalty clauses for breach of contract and a payment of about £5 million had already been made.
	The important point is that it was a UK decision. At that stage, I spoke personally to the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary—then Robin Cook. The Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary agreed that we should stand firmly against the deal, but the Prime Minister just listened and gave no undertaking. The 2001 election then intervened and Robin Cook was replaced by a new Foreign Secretary who was strongly briefed by his Department and strongly supported the deal—the Foreign Office is at it, too; it absolutely believes that its duty to the UK is to promote arms sales.
	The argument going on in Whitehall got into the public domain, and the Deputy Prime Minister convened an ad hoc Cabinet Committee to try to resolve the problem. The clear message from No. 10 was that the deal must go ahead, come what may, and all Secretaries of State were pressurised in that direction. We—that is I and officials at DFID, which is a great Department with lovely people—were still determined to fight, but only then did we discover that there was a secret pre-deal approval system. The Ministry of Defence had given approval for the project, which was already under construction in the Isle of Wight, on the basis that it would not be contested because it was uncontroversial. The thing was being built, people were working on it and by that stage, although we tried, no one could be persuaded not to issue a licence.
	It is easy to say that we should cut off aid if there is corruption, but there are many poor and hungry people in Tanzania. The aid is for them. Someone else stole the money, but if we punish the poor for that we are punishing the wrong people. What should we do? That is the dilemma and that is why we need to tighten up our systems. President Mkapa and I reached the agreement that if he promised that there would be no second half to the project, we would go ahead with increasing our aid. I saw him after he had ceased to be President, and he told me that he had kept the promise, so although that makes the system even more useless—because it covers only part of the country—at least no more money was wasted.
	My conclusion is that we need to ensure that such a project will never again be made. If we all agree that it is disgusting—and I think that it is great to see the Tory party engaging in this debate—we have a chance to try to clean up our system. Current UK policy is based on the assumption that all arms sales are good for the UK economy. Read Samuel Brittan repeatedly in the  Financial Times and discover that that is not the case. No other sector is subsidised with so much political muscle pushing up the exports, come what may. If the sector cannot be profitable in its own right, the high-quality engineers who work in it should be redeployed in other sectors.
	Secondly, there seems to be a belief that somehow we have to have an indigenous arms industry as though Napoleon might invade and we need to be able to make our own rifles. It is a completely time-lagged notion of the need to prop up and support arms exports. One of its effects is that our military gets lousy radios, lousy rifles and so forth that would have been better supplied if we purchased some of the equipment on the international markets.
	I repeat how pleased I am that the Tory party has raised this issue, but let us go beyond the usual point scoring. We have really uncovered something dirty here. The sale should never have been approved. All those senior officers in our Government should not be promoting dirty arms deals like this. If criterion 8 allows it through, let us tighten it up. Let us agree it cross party. Let us clean ourselves up and look again at the way in which we organise arms sales for our country. We could improve our reputation enormously and improve our relationship with all sorts of countries, including some of the poorest countries in the world.

Daniel Kawczynski: My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) made a very good speech and I concur with his comments about the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), who has acted very honourably throughout this entire process. I want to congratulate her—on the record—on that.
	The hon. Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry) stated that this was the first time in his memory that the Conservatives had brought up such an issue in the House. That may be the case, and I am very pleased that the Conservative party is starting to bring up such issues. Many of my constituents feel very strongly and passionately about these types of issues. They feel strongly about how best to help African countries and how to develop our industrial relationship with them.
	This is the first time that we have brought up such a debate because in the old days there would be far more Labour Members like the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood—principled members of a socialist Government who held true to their socialist beliefs and would refuse to allow a socialist Labour Government to behave in such a way. I cannot imagine the Government of Harold Wilson, James Callaghan or any of the other great Labour leaders getting involved in something as dirty as this.
	The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) made a very good point when she mentioned the Attorney-General passing a coach and horses through the issue. After this House of Commons debate, the Attorney-General should look very carefully at some of the comments that have been made and should seriously consider further investigations.

Roger Berry: I am curious. I think that the responsibility rests with the Serious Fraud Office to pursue this—and, indeed, some other investigations—rigorously. What precisely is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Attorney-General should do tomorrow morning?

Daniel Kawczynski: I may have less knowledge than the hon. Gentleman about the House's proceedings, but I believe that the Attorney-General is the most senior legal expert in our country and that the buck rests with him, so he should call for an investigation—or at least look further into it. That is my response to the hon. Gentleman.

Kevan Jones: I find the hon. Gentleman's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry) rather intriguing. An investigation into the corruption side of the matter is already under way, so is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting that we need another investigation into the investigation or is he suggesting that the Attorney-General should somehow intervene in the ongoing investigation?

Daniel Kawczynski: I do not want to get involved in that. I am a mere Tory Back Bencher. The Attorney-General has a duty and I want him to investigate the matter—enough said.
	I have visited Tanzania on many occasions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden raised some of the emotional issues that are involved when we discuss a country such as Tanzania. It is regrettable that other Members have not focused on that point. Tanzania is an extremely poor country. When I toured a school near the Kenyan border and met pupils and teachers, I was astounded at the conditions there. I was then taken to the homes of the children and saw that there was no electricity or running water. Those people lived in absolutely dire conditions. They were extremely hospitable, as so many Africans always are. It was a poverty that is unimaginable in our country.
	The GDP, as I mentioned in an intervention on the Secretary of State, is only $10 billion. It is difficult for us to contemplate such a small GDP. We have problems in our country with debts in our hospitals, and yet we are the fourth largest economy in the world. Just think for a moment of having a total budget of only $10 billion, with a population of 36 million. Basic mathematics enables us to calculate that the average Tanzanian has very little money to live on. Conditions are extremely poor.
	I remember reading about the radar deal in the national newspapers in 2001. I was not a Member of Parliament at the time. I was baffled and angered by the Government's actions, especially as the Labour party had said that it would have an ethical foreign policy. I can honestly look the Secretary of State in the eye and say, "I do not believe that it is an ethical foreign policy to sell a radar installation that has military implications, and that costs so much, to Tanzania, when that country is so desperately poor."  [ Interruption. ] The Secretary of State's Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt), is shaking his head, but that is the truth.

Kevan Jones: I am sorry to intervene on the hon. Gentleman again, but he is not very clever with his facts. The fact of the matter is that the Government did not sell the system to Tanzania. BAE Systems sold the system to Tanzania. The Government granted it an export licence, which is different from being involved in the actual sale.

Daniel Kawczynski: That is just semantics. The hon. Gentleman knows that the deal could not have gone through without the licence being approved by the Government. His point is immaterial. The deal could have been blocked if the Government and the Prime Minister had paid more attention to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood and others who showed caution at the time.
	I want to talk about the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt). She was instrumental in pushing the contract through. I concur with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, who said that the Secretary of State for International Development is here in the Chamber to defend the indefensible, when these things did not necessarily happen under his watch. They were happening under the watch of the right hon. Member for Leicester, West and I regret that, in our Chamber, we cannot call Ministers who were part of the original decision-making process to debates such as this. However, I have seen that happen in other Parliaments around the world—Ministers who made the decision at the time were forced to attend the Chamber. I regret that the right hon. Lady is not here today to listen to some of our concerns.
	The system cost £28 million, which is an extraordinary amount. It amounts to one third of the entire education budget for Tanzania. Our aid to Tanzania in 2005-06 was not £121 million as the Secretary of State stated earlier; it was £113 million. We complain about corruption and waste, but we promoted this white elephant ourselves. The radar has a military capability that far outweighs the requirements of the country's 19 military aircraft. Several hon. Members have bandied around figures for the number of aircraft that Tanzania actually has. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) suggested that the figure was 12, whereas I understand that it is 19. No matter what the figure is, it is significantly smaller than the number that would justify such equipment. I cannot understand how the radar can be a priority for Tanzania, given that it has been blessed with stable relationships with its neighbouring countries. It has not been invaded and it has a democratic Government. When I think about the poverty experienced by the schoolchildren whom I visited in Lunga Lunga, the concept of spending such an amount on a military radar is quite shocking.

Roger Berry: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern, but surely he realises that if there had not been a military component to the export, the UK Government would have had no licensing power at all. Is he suggesting that the Government should have stopped such a non-military project?

Daniel Kawczynski: We are dealing with this project, and as has already been stated, this deal stinks. I am trying to communicate to the hon. Gentleman, in a non-partisan way, that I genuinely believe, with my hand on my heart, that the deal was wrong for the people of Tanzania because of the extreme poverty that they face. He is a far more experienced parliamentarian than me, so he can try to tease things out of me. Luckily for me, I do not have responsibility for this matter—I am a Back Bencher. I am trying to talk passionately about how I feel about the Tanzanian people and to point out how violently opposed I am to our Government's actions.

Andrew Mitchell: Was not my hon. Friend's answer to the hon. Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry) absolutely right, and did not the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) give us the answer in her eloquent and accurate speech? There was an alternative—a far cheaper civil system. Such a system would have attracted tourists to Tanzania, especially American tourists, who will not go there because of the degree of radar cover. If that had been the proposition, we could all have supported something that would have been of genuine benefit to the Tanzanian economy.

Daniel Kawczynski: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.
	The Secretary of State quickly glossed over allegations about the bribery of the middle man and the assertion that $12 million had been paid into a Swiss bank account. Will he tell us what the Government are doing to try to trace the money? Are we in discussions with the Swiss bank, or officials in Lichtenstein, to try to trace it, and have we asked for the account to be frozen?
	We are a signatory to the EU code of conduct on arms exports, which obliges the Government to assess whether an export would undermine economic stability or hamper sustainable development in a recipient country. The Secretary of State said that Tanzania was doing awfully well, that it was now less dependent on foreign aid and that things had never been better. He put a very positive spin on the way in which Tanzania is moving. He has been to many African countries recently and he knows the huge financial constraints on those countries. I reiterate again that Tanzania is one of the poorest countries in the world. Having seen the way in which people live in north Tanzania, I agree with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood that the EU code of conduct has been broken because the Tanzanian economy must have been affected by the sheer size of the contract.
	I was concerned by the President of South Africa's comments to the international press, in which he implied that the United Kingdom was getting involved in all sorts of shady business deals. Our country is held in great esteem around the world, and historically we have had a tremendous reputation for being honourable.

Adam Afriyie: My hon. Friend has moved on to the issue of morality and the ethical base for not blocking the decision to allow the sale. Does he share my alarm about the way in which the Government announced that they would have an ethical foreign policy, and then allowed the deal to go ahead?

Daniel Kawczynski: Yes, and I referred to that earlier in my speech. I totally believe that the decision goes against the Government's ethical foreign policy.
	I conclude with one last comment on a matter that was raised by Liberal Democrat Members—the involvement of Barclays bank, which financed the deal. We hear that we in Britain are constantly being overcharged by banks, and I believe that that is partly to do with the amount of foreign debt that banks write off. If Tanzania ever reneges on the £28 million loan, it will be interesting to see whether the British taxpayer ends up footing the Bill.

Norman Lamb: I am pleased that this debate is taking place. In the last Parliament, when the export licence was being granted, I spent a lot of time researching the deal, and a lot of time in correspondence with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short). The Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), is absolutely right: the Prime Minister should be held to account for what happened in the case that we are discussing, particularly bearing in mind what the right hon. Lady has said. My great sadness is that the right time to hold the Government to account was the time when the export licence was being granted, and I believe that the House failed in that respect.
	I reached the view that the deal was a scandal, and that the decision to grant an export licence was scandalous. At the time, I was sufficiently concerned about the matter to write to the police, urging them to instigate a criminal investigation, but they refused, so it was a surprise to be contacted by the Serious Fraud Office some three months ago, and to be told that it was investigating the deal, although I was pleased to hear that the investigation was taking place.
	Let us consider the basic facts and remind ourselves why the deal was so scandalous. As we have heard, Tanzania is one of the poorest countries in the world. Back in 1997, when the Ministry of Defence was, unbeknown to DFID, giving the deal the preliminary green light under the F680 procedure, Tanzania's external debt was $7.6 billion and its per-capita gross national product was $220. Yet a British company sold a military air traffic control system to a country without an air force worthy of the name, at a staggering cost of $40 million. Recent allegations in  The Guardian suggest that $12 million was paid to a middleman—that is 30 per cent. of the contract price. The International Civil Aviation Organisation, a UN body, stated that the equipment was
	"not adequate and is too expensive".
	The final report, to which the Secretary of State referred, has not been published, and it is up to the Tanzanian Government to decide whether it should be published.

Clare Short: I really do not think that that is right. The report was commissioned by the World Bank, so it must be the property of the World Bank. If the UK Government wished to press the World Bank to publish it, it probably could be published.

Norman Lamb: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that intervention, but at the time, I was told that the decision was the responsibility of the Tanzanian Government. In his winding-up speech, will the Minister give a commitment that he will do everything possible to publish that report, which was described to me by a World Bank official as a bombshell? It is overwhelmingly in the public interest for that report to be published.
	May I concentrate on the Government's role in the affair? Why on earth did they sanction the sale, which is surely indefensible, inexcusable and wholly contrary to the criteria to which they committed themselves? The Secretary of State criticised the Conservatives for not having any criteria at all, and that was a fair and just criticism. However, is it any better to introduce criteria which the Government then ignored? If, as he suggested, criterion 8 is not sufficient to block such an export, it must be amended to ensure that in future such a deal cannot proceed.
	On the financing of the deal, Tanzania could not simply borrow on a commercial basis. Because it was part of the HIPC initiative, it had to satisfy the International Monetary Fund that the Barclays loan was arranged at a concessional rate. The IMF confirmed that the financing package
	"yielded a weighted average grant element"—
	it is interesting to hear of Barclays making a grant—
	"of 35.9 per cent., which qualified the loan as concessional under IMF rules."
	That was known to the Government when the export licence was granted.
	Why was Barclays so generous? I challenged the bank on several occasions, but I did not receive any answers. The World Bank representative with whom I established contact confirmed that he had never encountered a commercial organisation that subsidised the purchase of military equipment by a very poor country. It does not make sense. Was it simply an act of generosity? Did it have anything to do with the fact that Barclays secured a banking licence in Tanzania in October 2000? Did the fact that Barclays held shares in BAE have anything to do with it? Barclays should be held to account for its role in the affair. I want banks to behave with a sense of corporate social responsibility, as that is the ultimate example of a business ignoring and evading that responsibility.
	Did the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt), know of these bizarre financing arrangements when she granted the export licence in December 2002? I suspect from the speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood that the right hon. Member for Leicester, West knew of those precise concerns when she decided to grant the licence, so she, too, should be held to account. Did she know of the allegations of impropriety—I suspect that the answer is yes—and was that taken into account? We need to know the answers.
	In the aftermath of the totally unacceptable decision to halt the SFO inquiry into the al-Yamamah contract, it is imperative that that investigation and the offshoot investigations into BAE are brought to a proper conclusion without political interference. If we are to start to rebuild this country's reputation for adherence to the rule of law in these matters it is essential that those investigations are completed. The Government's utter hypocrisy in lecturing Africa about good governance while behaving in that way is quite stunning. Who on earth will listen to us lecturing about good governance if that is all that is left of our foreign policy with an ethical dimension?
	May I conclude with an open letter to the British Government from the "Consortium of Concerned Tanzanians International", which calls on the British Government to intervene? It wants an independent inquiry in Tanzania—one should be held here, too—and it puts its case in graphic terms:
	"How does a military radar that watches over one third of the nation help us defeat AIDS, improve our education system, and create more jobs for our young people?...The deal was not only wrong, it was unethical and indeed immoral."
	That deal was conducted by a British company, and it was sanctioned by the British Government. We owe it to the Tanzanian people to establish the truth of this scandal.

Mark Simmonds: The debate has been informed, detailed, intriguing and illuminating, shining a light into many dark recesses, particularly of Downing street. The debate was opened by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), the shadow Secretary of State who in an intelligent speech gave a forensic analysis highlighting with skill the divisions, the frictions and the tensions at the heart of Government. He detailed a series of questions that remain unanswered, highlighting our concern about developmental progress in Tanzania, the significance of the UK contribution, and the importance of transparency between the UK and Tanzania and the other African countries with which the UK has a donor relationship.
	That was followed by the Secretary of State who, in his usually measured and eloquent way, touched lightly on all the issues surrounding the debate. It was clearly a carefully constructed speech, but no assurance was given that the requisite reports would be published.

Gareth Thomas: My right hon. Friend's speeches are always carefully constructed.

Mark Simmonds: The Secretary of State's speech was not unusually carefully constructed, as the Minister says. The right hon. Gentleman gave no guarantee that pressure would be put on the World Bank to publish the report, although the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) said that that would, in her view, be possible.
	However, the Secretary of State was right to identify three of the important issues, the first being the export licensing process and criterion 8. He stated that there had been one refusal from the DTI under criterion 8, but it was interesting to hear from the hon. Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry) that the France-UK score was 45:1. I hope the Minister for Science and Innovation will explain why the score is so out of kilter if we are all supposedly applying criterion 8 in exactly the same way across the European Union.
	We accept that complex judgments are involved, but nothing that the Secretary of State said today justified the poor decision that was taken. He spoke about what is being done now, after the decision in 2001. In all his responses to interventions, it was clear that he was opposed to the deal, supporting his Secretary of State at the time and, I suspect, supporting the civil servants in the excellent Department for International Development.
	The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) rightly emphasised the UK's excellent reputation in the world, the importance of maintaining that reputation, and the damage that can be done by transactions such as the one in question. She spoke about the universal recognition across the House of the importance of fighting corruption, and agreed that we must continue to do all we can. In his efforts to fight corruption in Africa and around the world, the Secretary of State will find that the Opposition strongly support that aim.
	The hon. Lady stressed the necessity for the Minister to give the House an assurance from the Dispatch Box that the Serious Fraud Office will have the Government's full co-operation and the necessary resources to continue the investigation as thoroughly and expeditiously as possible.
	The contribution from the hon. Member for Kingswood was extremely well informed and interesting. As a member of the Quadripartite Committee, he has inside information, much of which is confidential. That came across well in his knowledgeable contribution. He said that he was not convinced by the merits of the Government decision. That is a significant remark from a member of the Quadripartite Committee. If I understood correctly, he was not alone in reaching that conclusion. It was the unanimous decision of the Quadripartite Committee.
	The hon. Gentleman pointed out the odd timing of the decision, a matter to which I shall return, and spoke in some detail about the systems that we should have in place for export licences. It is intriguing that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office took 18 months to reply to the Committee's letter and that when it came, the reply contained nothing more than members of the Committee already knew, which some would argue was an ideal parliamentary answer. The Committee has a reputation for the highest probity and discretion. The fact that the Government refused to provide the necessary information further fuels the suspicion surrounding the transaction.
	We heard an excellent speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), drawing on his experience during the time he spent in Tanzania. It was an articulate contribution made with great clarity and intellectual rigour. He asked what was known at the time that the decision was made. He made it clear that it was primarily a military system. No UK Minister has ever denied that, unless the Minister is about to rise to the Dispatch Box and claim for the first time that it was not. I hope that my right hon. Friend was wrong in one element of his conclusions, because what happened with this particular transaction must not set a precedent for the future. He summed up the debate very well when he said that the Secretary of State had been defending the indefensible.
	The hon. Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins) made a brief contribution in which he rightly highlighted the influence of China in Africa—although I am not sure what relevance that has to this debate.
	We then heard a very powerful and passionate speech by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood, who was Secretary of State at the time when the decision was made. Her views on this are well documented. She deserves enormous credit for her consistent and dedicated fight against corruption and for her consistent advocacy of people in the developing world. She has been a fervent champion for the cause of alleviating poverty. I hope that if she happens to leave this place she will continue her passion for helping people who are less fortunate than those of us in this House this evening.
	The right hon. Lady rightly stressed the fact that many lessons must be learned from this episode. She pointed out the relationship between a HIPC procedure and a concessional loan, which brings in the question of Barclays bank, and noted the interesting fact about the European Investment Bank offering cheaper, more up-to-date technology—a significant factor in categorising this deal as dubious and squalid.
	The right hon. Lady was right to correct the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) to ensure that the House understood that increasing UK aid contributes to the cost of servicing the debt to purchase a system the export licence for which was approved by this Government despite significant controversy and disagreement within the Cabinet.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), who also drew on his time in Tanzania, rightly referred to the significant levels of poverty that still exist there. He emphasised the role of the right hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt), who was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at the time, and expressed a desire to see her brought to this Chamber to explain and to answer questions on the decisions that she took, very controversially, some time ago.
	My hon. Friend was also right to highlight his concern, which is shared by Members on both sides of the House, about the President of South Africa's comments on the United Kingdom's current position.
	We then heard from the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who deserves to be congratulated on consistently pursuing this issue with vigour and not giving up. He provided a detailed analysis and synthesis of the issues surrounding the export licence. He rightly observed that Tanzania is one of the poorest countries in the world and that criterion 8 was ignored and overridden. He highlighted the Barclays transaction, which is highly suspicious, and the interrelationships that exist between Barclays bank and the British defence industry. He deserves credit for the consistent way in which he has pursued this controversial issue.
	When the export licence was approved in 2001, life expectancy in Tanzania was just 45, 2 million people were infected with HIV, only 50 per cent. of the population had access to clean water and sanitation, and 51 per cent. of the population lived below the poverty line. It was in that context that the Prime Minister pushed the deal through the Cabinet, not only against the protestations of fellow Cabinet members but in the face of criticism from the World Bank and the United Nations, fierce opposition from British non-governmental organisations, and pleading from some in Tanzania itself. The International Civil Aviation Organisation described the system as
	"not appropriate and too expensive"
	and the World Bank labelled it as the "wrong system".
	Despite the Secretary of State's comments about Tanzania making progress since that time—we congratulate the people of Tanzania on that—he is wrong to say that further progress could not have been made if that country had had the ability to use the resources purely for alleviating poverty, and to use those from the donor community for the purposes for which they were originally intended rather than for funding debt to buy military and civil systems that the Tanzanian people did not need.

John Spellar: Which system does the hon. Gentleman believe that the Tanzanian Government should have bought? Where would it have been made?

Mark Simmonds: If the right hon. Gentleman had been in the Chamber for the whole debate rather than popping in after dinner, he would have heard that detail being discussed.
	If what I have outlined was not bad enough, the amount of the commission should have set alarm bells ringing in Downing street. The Export Credits Guarantee Department is supposedly suspicious of any deal in which the commission is more than 5 or 10 per cent. In the case we are discussing, it was 29 per cent.—a $12 million commission, which could have been used in Tanzania to buy health care for 1 million people.
	Conservative Members recognise that the deal—

John Spellar: rose—

Mark Simmonds: No, I will not give way— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mark Simmonds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall not give way again to the right hon. Gentleman. If he had been here throughout the debate, I should have been happy to do so, but he was not.
	The Serious Fraud Office and the Ministry of Defence are currently investigating the matter. They have confirmed that there may have been corruption and criminal activity. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will be fully co-operative and provide adequate resources?
	All the senior figures in the affair are complicit. The Prime Minister and the former Foreign Secretary argued that Tanzanian sovereignty must be an overriding consideration in the deal. Is Zimbabwean, North Korean or Iranian sovereignty an overriding consideration for arms export licences from the United Kingdom? Of course not.
	In 1997, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that
	"export credits for poor, highly indebted countries will only support productive expenditure."
	According to the International Monetary Fund, the Tanzanian deal constitutes unproductive expenditure. That directly contradicts the Chancellor's assurance of almost a decade ago.
	In the context of the White Paper, such deals make the UK Government the target of criticism and allegations of hypocrisy, especially when we lecture others on the importance of good governance, accountability and transparency while appearing not only to be complicit but to facilitate a distinctly dubious arms transaction.
	We are considering a sad episode for British governmental processes that has damaged our reputation for probity and propriety. It has exacerbated poverty when it need not have done so. It threatens to undermine the support for the international development agenda from British taxpayers and raises questions about the strength of the Department for International Development in relation to other Departments. The blame for that must lie with the Prime Minister.

Malcolm Wicks: The debate has been useful at times and interesting throughout. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) said that the contribution from his Front-Bench spokesman was intelligent. Obviously, the contribution from ours was very intelligent. Several hon. Members made interesting contributions, including my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry), the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins), the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), and the hon. Members for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) and for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb). I shall not detail their contributions, but I hope to pick up many of the points that were made.
	The subject of the debate was the Government's decision on the export of a radar system to Tanzania. I welcome the opportunity to close the debate for the Government by focusing on the decision, the context, subsequent developments and looking ahead.
	The episode started in 1992, when our high commissioner in Tanzania alerted the then Government to the requirement for a new air traffic control system, and the Defence Export Services Organisation notified BAE Systems of the prospect. The Government's decision to issue export licences in December 2001 for an air traffic control system for Tanzania was taken after careful and lengthy consideration of the application—and clearly some controversy—against the Government's consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development explained, the Government take their responsibility on arms export licensing, including in relation to sustainable development, most seriously. In assessing all applications, we draw on the expertise of several Departments to ensure stringent assessment against the licensing criteria. They ensure that the risks that concern us all, including internal repression, internal or regional conflict, the need to support sustainable development and the risk of diversion to undesirable end users, are rigorously assessed on every occasion.
	The Government carried out just such an analysis when they considered the licences for the air traffic control system for Tanzania. We also discussed the issue thoroughly among Departments, and concluded that the licence should be approved. Although there were some concerns about the system and its suitability, ultimately they were matters for the Government of Tanzania to resolve. It was not our place to dictate to the Government of Tanzania which system they thought that they needed. Equally, if the export was not clearly in breach of any of the EU criteria, it would not have been right for us to withhold a licence with a view to blocking the proposed export.
	One of the interesting features to come out of this debate is the balance that we need to strike between the criteria that should determine the Government's action and the independence of a sovereign nation. I should like to cite the remarks of Tanzania's Foreign Minister Kikwete—now its President—in 2002:
	"We are not a department of the World Bank—we are a country and it's a bit insulting to suggest that we need to wait for the World Bank to prescribe what's best for us...The responsibility for Tanzania is in the hands of Tanzanians."

Norman Lamb: The Minister mentioned earlier the question of the suitability of the system. Reference has also been made to the final report of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, and I am sure that he is about to get to that subject. Will he, however, make a commitment in the public interest to ensure that that report is published?

Malcolm Wicks: I was about to get to it, actually. I thank the hon. Gentleman for helping me; he obviously understands my notes very well.
	The issue of whether the Government of Tanzania needed a military air traffic control system—and whether it was, to coin a phrase, fit for purpose—has been a big feature of this debate. The criteria required us to assess whether the export was compatible with the technical and economic capacity of the recipient country. Beyond that, I repeat that it was for the Government of Tanzania to assess whether the system was appropriate for their needs, and whether to purchase it. The fact that the UK Government issued the licences did not oblige the Government of Tanzania to proceed with the purchase.
	On the hon. Gentleman's question about the publication of the report, the two parties involved in this matter are the Government of Tanzania, whose sovereign status we should respect, and the World Bank. His question should be directed to them, not to the UK Government.

Norman Lamb: But the Government have influence.

Malcolm Wicks: We have influence, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen to it.
	Why did we authorise this export to Tanzania, one of the world's poorest countries? Was the system too expensive? We have discussed these questions during the debate, and they were specifically considered in the assessment against the consolidated criteria, particularly criterion 8. In assessing the application, the Government were required to consider whether the export would
	"seriously undermine the economy or seriously hamper the sustainable development of the recipient country".
	Our judgment was that it would not, even in the worst case scenario. If we had assessed that the export was not consistent with any of the criteria, licences would not have been issued.

Peter Lilley: Will the Minister tell us whether any level of excess pricing for this deal would have led to its falling foul of criterion 8? Or could any multiple of the alternative available system have been proposed and, in the view of the British Government, still not have undermined the economy of Tanzania?

Malcolm Wicks: I do not think that it is a question of the price as such; that is a commercial judgment. It is a question whether the arrangement would seriously undermine. In that sense, of course, price is important, and there would be prices that seriously undermine.

Norman Lamb: Will the Minister give way?

Malcolm Wicks: In a moment. The hon. Gentleman has had a bit of a go today, but I might let him intervene in a moment.
	I hope that colleagues will understand that it would not be right for me to comment on any ongoing Serious Fraud Office examination of this matter.

Norman Lamb: I want to ask the Minister a question, just before he leaves the subject of the consolidated criteria. If the criteria effectively allow the granting of an export licence in circumstances in which a deal is clearly shrouded in impropriety—or alleged impropriety—and in which the system involved is declared by the International Civil Aviation Organisation to be effectively not fit for purpose, does the Minister agree that the consolidated criteria must, therefore, be reformed?

Malcolm Wicks: I was coming to that point, but let me say, not least in answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Quadripartite Committee about methodology, that we have a clear methodology for applying criterion 8. It is EU-based and is summarised, I am advised, in the Export Control Organisation's 2005 annual report, commencing on page 83, and accessible via the DTI website. That is EU guidance based on UK guidance developed in the light of the Tanzanian case.
	Obviously, there were some points arising from the Tanzanian case, which we have subsequently addressed. The need was highlighted for clearer procedures within Whitehall for assessing applications when criterion 8 came into play. We have therefore agreed guidance for officials when they consider the impact of a proposed arms export on the recipient country. That guidance has been incorporated into the EU criteria. Moreover, the principle that sustainable development must be taken into account in licensing decisions was enshrined in the Export Control Act 2002. DFID continues to play an active part in the licensing process, and in all discussions on the arms trade.
	I want to remind Members that UK export controls are among the most robust in the world, and to underline the Government's record on transparency in export licensing. In 1997, we announced, for the first time, detailed criteria for assessing applications, which reflected our commitment to managing arms transfers responsibly, especially so as to avoid their use for internal repression and international aggression. Prior to that, there were no published criteria. Those criteria have been incorporated into the EU code of conduct, which now applies to all member states. Therefore, we have led on the issue.
	At one stage, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood said that the DTI always fights for arms deals, or words to that effect. If that is true, my Department is failing. In 2005, 129 licence applications were refused and many others were withdrawn when the stringency of the criteria were understood. I am advised that we actually have the highest refusal rate of any EU country. It is easy to throw around insults, but I am here to defend my Department's stewardship of this important policy.
	We also publish comprehensive details of our policy and decision making in our quarterly and annual reports, and we are of course scrutinised carefully by the Quadripartite Committee. Not least because of the issues raised, we will initiate a review later this year of the controls introduced, in 2004, under the Export Control Act 2002. That is timed to commence three years after the new export control legislation was implemented, in accordance with Cabinet Office better regulation guidelines. There will be full public consultation, and the review is timely.
	The Government also have a proud record on attacking corruption. We have ratified the UN convention against corruption, and put new legislation in place to allow us to do so. We have also established a new internal corruption group staffed by City of London and Metropolitan police officers. Our commitment to a new international arms trade treaty, as highlighted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, is also relevant.
	We will learn lessons from any situation of this kind, and the review will be the right time to consider those. We have had a lively debate, but I recognise that differences remain between the Government and the Opposition on this matter. The main differences are obvious. A Labour Government introduced a clear export control regime; the Conservative Government had no such clarity. A Labour Government have taken a series of decisive steps to combat corruption; the Conservatives let corruption fester during their Administration.
	Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire) (Con)  rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
	 Question, That the Question be now put,  put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 217, Noes 293.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Question, That the proposed words be there added,  put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Mr. Speaker  forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House notes that it would be inappropriate to comment on allegations of corruption in connection with the sale of a radar system to Tanzania in light of the current investigation by the Serious Fraud Office; notes the great progress made by Tanzania since 2002 in achieving debt relief, poverty reduction and public service reform; notes that the decision to grant an export licence for the air traffic control system was taken after due consideration of the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria; acknowledges that that decision took place after full discussion at Cabinet level; further notes that the UK subsequently established its own cross-Whitehall methodology for the assessment of applications against Criterion 8 of the consolidated criteria and was subsequently instrumental in establishing a shared methodology with its EU partners; and further notes the Government's efforts to promote an International Arms Trade Treaty.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

criminal law

That the draft Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Amendment of Schedules 3 and 5) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 18th December, be approved. —[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

constitutional law

That the draft National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved. —[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
	 Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

ec action on health services

That this House takes note of European Union Document SEC (06) 1195/4, Commission Communication: Consultation on Community Action on Health Services; notes that this document concerns itself primarily with the need for the development of legal certainty in the field of cross-border healthcare; notes that this need arises from case law developed in the European Court of Justice that currently applies to the UK and which contains unhelpful areas of ambiguity; further notes that the rest of the Communication looks broadly at non-regulatory areas where co-operation at a European level may add value to Member states' efforts in the field of healthcare; and therefore supports the Government's position that the UK should pro-actively engage in this area in order to achieve the maximum influence over the shape of the debate and any subsequent proposals. —[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
	 Question agreed to.

NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 115(1) and 116(1),
	That—
	(1) the draft Budget (Northern Ireland) Order 2007 be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;
	(2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Tuesday 27th February at Four o'clock; and
	(3) at that sitting—
	(a) the Committee shall take questions under Standing Order No. 110 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)), and shall then consider the instrument referred to it under paragraph (1) above; and
	(b) at the conclusion of those proceedings, a motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be made by a Minister of the Crown, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)). —[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
	 Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Ordered,
	That the Common Agricultural Policy Single Payment and Support Schemes (Cross-compliance) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2006 (S.I., 2006, No. 3254), dated 5th December, be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.—— —[Mr. Alan Campbell.]

PETITION

Milk Pricing

Caroline Spelman: It is a great privilege to present a petition about milk prices to the House on behalf of the National Federation of Women's Institutes, which has no fewer than 71,000 signatures. Rarely in my experience has a petition of such size been brought before the House, but it represents the very substantial concern in the country about milk prices. It has my support as well as the support of my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for dairy farmers.
	I do not wish to detain the House unduly, and the facts speak for themselves. The price of a litre of milk has fallen from 24.5p to 18p over the past 10 years, yet at the same time, has risen—if bought from the retailer—from 42p to 51p. What business can withstand a cut in its price of such an order at a time of rising costs?
	One third of all dairy farmers have given up working in the dairy industry in the past two years and a further one third plan to go. We all have dairy farmers in our constituencies, and we have friends and family members who have had to give up producing milk because it has proved uneconomic. We commend the Women's Institute for taking on this issue. It is the voice of the consumer, the discerning connoisseur of high-quality home-produced food, and a formidable force to be reckoned with, as the Prime Minister found to his cost.
	The petition says that the petitioners call on the House to request
	the Government to take action to:
	Commission a full scale investigation into the practices of the dairy sector and the effects these have on dairy farmers to ensure that a watchdog is put in place to oversee the dairy industry and ensure that all parties in the food chain receive a fair price.
	Ensure that emergency measures are put in place while the investigation is undertaken to make certain that more dairy farmers are not forced out of business in the interim.
	Make farming a priority for Britain to ensure that we do not have to depend entirely on other nations to supply our food.
	And the petition remains etc.
	With the leave of the House, I commend this sizeable petition. The day has had sufficient joys and sorrows for it not to be my wish to detain the House further.
	 To lie upon the Table.

UK RELATIONS (AUSTRALIA/NEW ZEALAND)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Alan Campbell.]

Andrew Rosindell: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has no truer friends in the world than the Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand. On ANZAC day each year, members of the all-party parliamentary group for Australia and New Zealand attend Westminster abbey to commemorate this important occasion. On 11 November 2006 you, Mr. Speaker, along with several hon. Members from this House, attended the opening by Her Majesty the Queen of the New Zealand memorial at Hyde park corner, three years to the day after the Australian memorial was inaugurated by Her Majesty, both standing as lasting tributes in London to the memory of those Australians and New Zealanders who lost their lives fighting alongside British forces through various wars and conflicts.
	The timing of today's debate could hardly be better. As many hon. Members will be aware, Australia day was celebrated only last Friday, 26 January. There was much revelry and celebration by many of the inhabitants of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands). I fear there may be one or two more sore heads next Wednesday, following the Waitangi day celebrations of 6 February in pubs all over Earls Court and the south-west of London.
	The UK's relationship with our antipodean cousins has always been strained by the geographical distance that separates us and places us at opposite ends of the globe. However, distance has been no bar to the very special bond that exists between our three great nations.
	Some people have defined the UK's relationship with Australian and New Zealand as more akin to brotherhood than friendship. The three countries often fall out over sporting rivalries involving cricket, rugby or sailing, but our people have always shared a common heritage and been bound together by a deep-rooted historical camaraderie. That friendship led our three countries to share the tripartite ANZUK force; although it is now disbanded, that military unit used to be charged with protecting ANZUK interests in the Asia-Pacific region.
	There have been various trade agreements and student and business exchange programmes between our three countries, and we also share the same ideals of democratic governance. Moreover, many school and university leavers from Australia and New Zealand opt to take their gap year in the UK, and vice versa. Perhaps the most significant thing that we have in common is the fact that we share a constitution based on the Westminster model, and all three countries proudly uphold Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as sovereign and head of state.
	The UK, Australia and New Zealand can be defined as prosperous western democracies and constitutional monarchies. All are characterised by political stability, relatively high incomes, above-average rates of home ownership and long traditions of representative democracy. Why, therefore, should we in the British isles feel guilt about how the relationship with Australia and New Zealand has developed in recent decades?

Fraser Kemp: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the UK Australia Leadership Forum has been responsible for big improvements in the relationship between our countries? It was set up by the two former high commissioners Michael L'Estrange and Alastair—now Lord—Goodlad, and is being continued by the current high commissioners, Helen Liddell and Richard Alston. It met in London for the first time three years ago, and again in Canberra last year, and it brings together politicians and members of the business community. The Prime Ministers of the two countries have added their weight to the meetings, but both our nations face a change of Prime Minister in the next 12 months. Does the hon. Gentleman share my hope that future forums will benefit from the attendance of the UK and Australian Prime Ministers and their senior Ministers, as has happened in the past?

Andrew Rosindell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and entirely endorse everything that he has said. The forum to which he refers certainly adds to the relationship between our countries, about which I hope all hon. Members feel very strongly. Moreover, I hope that it will improve that relationship still further.
	Some people believe that Australia and New Zealand could have felt let down by Britain's decision in 1973 to join the then European Economic Community and, to a great extent, abandon our sovereign kin. Especially, we deprived New Zealand of its main trading partner, about which New Zealanders have some right to feel affronted. Since then, however, I am pleased that Australia and New Zealand have flourished as independent nations. Perhaps the mother country can now learn something from her offspring.
	Both nations have shown great determination in defending the interests of their own people, internationally and domestically. Australia and New Zealand do not experience the level of violent crime and antisocial behaviour that we in the UK now endure. They do not release convicted paedophiles on to the streets owing to overcrowding in jails, or allow illegal immigrants to commit crimes within their borders.

Austin Mitchell: If we have anything to learn, it is not from the lessons the hon. Gentleman is teaching at the moment, but from the fact that Australia has followed a very different policy from New Zealand and has been a sycophantic follower of American policy on climate change and on Iraq. New Zealand, on the other hand, has maintained an independent line on both issues—as we should have done in the UK—especially on Iraq, where it wisely stayed out. If we are to learn lessons, it should be from New Zealand rather than from Australia.

Andrew Rosindell: The points that I am making apply generally, although there will of course be political disagreements on certain aspects of policy. The values to which I refer are common to both nations.

Paul Beresford: Conveniently, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) completely forgot about Vietnam in his intervention.

Andrew Rosindell: Perhaps I should continue.
	Australia and New Zealand deport illegal immigrants who are criminals to their nation of origin. They restrict the number of migrant workers, to preserve a manageable population size. More importantly, they have built strong independent economies that nurture scientific, mathematical, artistic and academic acumen to ensure that they retain an educational elite to secure their prosperity.
	Both countries celebrate, with pride, Australia day and Waitangi day with a public holiday. Our Government would do well to learn a thing or two from Australia and New Zealand; indeed, they could start by celebrating St. George's day, St. Andrew's day and St. David's day as public holidays for all.
	In the first decade of this new century, is not it time to rekindle and strengthen the links between our three nations?

Denis MacShane: We are all looking forward to the hon. Gentleman's non-partisan speech; I should particularly like more details about Australia's transportation policy, which he mentioned earlier. Does he agree that one of the advantages for MPs is that they can travel to Europe? Perhaps he and I could work across the divide to see whether MPs from both parties who want to foster the links he proposes could travel to Australia—obviously not every year, but once or twice in a Parliament—and build such connections. We go to America all the time, but we do not go to Australia and New Zealand often enough.

Andrew Rosindell: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's proposal will be considered. I shall talk about travel between Australia, the United Kingdom and New Zealand later in my speech.
	Would not it make sense for the United Kingdom to adopt an agenda for developing a special relationship with Australia and New Zealand, rather than to carry on pursuing some of the misguided foreign policy ventures we have witnessed in recent years? Is not it a missed opportunity for the UK that Australia and New Zealand share a formal military alliance, and that Australia has a separate alliance with the United States, yet the United Kingdom, a nation that shares such a rich heritage with those great countries, has no such reciprocal military treaty or formal alliance?
	Let us not forget that 25 years ago, when the then Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher, successfully led us to liberate the Falkland Islands from the invading Argentine forces, it was not Europe, or even our great ally the United States, that came directly to our aid in support of the expeditionary force, but the special forces of Australia and New Zealand. Indeed, New Zealand was the only country to send any form of substantial military support, in the form of a frigate, freeing up our own Navy to engage the Argentine enemy and defeat her.

John Spellar: Was it not rather unfortunate that at the time when Australia asked us to help—when it was involved in East Timor—the present Government gave them our support but the Opposition Front Benchers declined, and attacked us for doing so?

Andrew Rosindell: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. Of course, I would not expect the Opposition to agree with everything that I am saying this evening— [Laughter.] I believe that the commonality that we share is something that all parties can build on in the future.
	This is something for which we should be eternally grateful, and should never forget—I refer to the assistance that those countries gave us during the Falklands conflict.
	If the UK were to structure a more formal military alliance with Australia and New Zealand, it would benefit and bolster the already strong exchange programmes between the individual military forces, especially that of the Special Air Service and the special boat squadrons. It would also provide indispensable technological and scientific opportunities to research projects undertaken by scientists in conjunction specifically with navy and air forces from each of the three countries in areas such as the Arctic, Antarctica and the south Pacific. Surely Her Majesty's Government should consider this point when our own military forces are so overstretched, so undermanned and so poorly equipped that it is only because they are the best and most professional military in the world that they are able to cope.
	I touched earlier on the issue of immigration control, and I would like to return to it now, if I may. As all hon. Members are aware, when arriving at Heathrow airport citizens of the European Union are allowed to enter the United Kingdom through one section—an almost unrestricted and uncontrolled area signposted "United Kingdom and EU Nationals". Those entering from countries such as Australia or New Zealand are forced to enter through the section denoted as "Others". We arguably share closer relations and, historically and culturally speaking, have much more in common with Australia and New Zealand, which have stricter immigration and border controls than most, if not all, EU states.
	What message does that send out to our Australian and New Zealand cousins who offer an invaluable contribution to our nation, with tens of thousands who work here legally, who prop up our national health service, who provide for and educate our children in schools up and down the country, who work to maintain the standard of our professional and amateur sporting industries, who sit next to us on the tube every day and who contribute through the inordinate amount of tax they are forced to pay? Will Her Majesty's Government explore the possibility of developing a reciprocal immigration policy with Australia and New Zealand that mirrors the one currently in place between the UK and EU member states? Surely new procedures could be introduced whereby passport, visa and immigration controls are amended to make such a scheme a reality.
	Our common British heritage should count for so much more than it currently does, and I call upon Her Majesty's Government to look again at areas in which our three nations can work more closely together and establish practical ways in which to utilise more fully the unshakeable bonds between the peoples of the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand.
	In so doing, let us remember the heroism that followed the landings of allied forces at Anzac cove, Gallipoli on 25 April 1915. Let no Member of this House ever forget the bravery of the Australian and New Zealand army corps, who, together with British forces, sacrificed so much in defence of king and country.
	Tonight let the House demonstrate pride at the close association between the peoples of our three proud nations, bound together by language, history, culture, flag and the fact that we share Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as sovereign. I began my speech by stating that Britain has no truer friends than Australia and New Zealand. Our challenge is to build a trilateral special relationship between these great nations. I sincerely hope that that may form the foundation of a new international policy for the United Kingdom in the 21st century.

Ian McCartney: I congratulate the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on securing the debate. At one stage, I thought that he was going to make a speech of a general nature about the all-party group on Australia and New Zealand. I will write to the group in detail on some of the issues that we may not discuss tonight. I want to keep the group abreast of our continuing relationship with Australia and New Zealand. It is a special relationship—it always has been and it always will be. Over the next 12 minutes or so, I hope to set out the work that I am doing as a Minister, in support of the Prime Minister, to sustain that relationship.
	From my own perspective, the issue is important because I have family in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide. They are probably watching the debate. The McCartneys went to Adelaide and Melbourne many years ago. I regret to say that we meet on only a three-yearly basis. My mother's family are in Sydney. They are great rugby league fans. My Uncle Bill was a pilot in the second world war. He came here to fight against the Nazis and he took my aunt back home to Australia. The rest, as they say, is history.
	For a Scotsman and a diplomat there is also the question of how much to say about cricket and other sporting events. As a former chair of the all-party group on rugby league, I can say that the British Army rugby league team has defeated the Australian rugby league team in Sydney. That is the first—and I think the last—sporting achievement for some time where we have gained a victory. I thank both the British Army team and the Australians for that marvellous contest. As for our colleagues in New Zealand, I have a Maori name. I am called Tia Puka Iti, which means "little fat man". However, having lost 5 stone in the last year or so, I think that I will just be the little man and drop the fat bit.
	The debate gives us a genuine opportunity to discuss our excellent relationship with Australia and New Zealand. We have a close and long-standing relationship with both countries. Political, defence and intelligence relationships are excellent and there is a long tradition of co-operation on international affairs. The Prime Minister visited Australia and New Zealand in March last year and I followed up his visit in October. I will summarise the key outcomes of the visits and our ongoing co-operation with each country.
	In October 2006, I attended the Pacific Islands Forum post-forum dialogue in Nadi, Fiji. That was followed by bilateral visits to both Australia and New Zealand. The objectives and outcomes included bolstering activities in the region, working with Australia and New Zealand to give active support to them and their policies in the Pacific and developing both a bilateral relationship and the multilateral relationship that we have with other Pacific islands and states. Together with our colleagues from Australia and New Zealand, we sent strong messages about the importance of good governance in the region as a foundation for sustainable development. We supported the continued role of the Australian-led regional assistance mission to the Solomon Islands. The objectives and outcomes also included enhancing donor co-ordination in the region and ensuring our continued influence over the direction of European development aid. I supported the considerable efforts of the New Zealand Prime Minister, Helen Clark, to ensure that the conference was not overshadowed by some of the events in the Solomon Islands.
	During my visits to Australia and New Zealand, I was able to follow up a number of the themes that were discussed at the forum. They have been followed up since by officials in the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade and Industry. In New Zealand, I was able to give reassurance about the United Kingdom's engagement with the Pacific. As a result, we are sharing our strategic thinking on the Pacific with the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and supporting New Zealand's objectives in the region. I thank New Zealand for taking on consular responsibility for British nationals in several Pacific countries in which the UK is not represented. We reciprocate that assistance in countries in which New Zealand is not represented, so there is a close and effective working relationship between the UK, New Zealand and Australia.
	In Australia, we agreed to explore collaborative work to address the specific fraud problems faced by Pacific island countries. I have proposed co-operation between the UK, Australia and other international partners to address the unique climate and energy-related challenges that are faced by small island Pacific states. As a result of the visit, I have asked Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials and British high commissioners in the region to examine how we can maximise our impact in the Pacific and work closely with not only the European Commission, but our colleagues in New Zealand and Australia.
	In November, the fourth UK-Australia security dialogue took place in London. It was an opportunity to hold more detailed discussions on security and defence matters at a senior official level. Both the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence participate in the annual event. The agenda for the meeting included the Asia-Pacific region, Afghanistan and the middle east, as well as counter-proliferation and counter-terrorism. The agenda will expand next year to include climate security. The hon. Gentleman was thus not quite right because there has been an active relationship on such matters for a considerable time. We should not underestimate that relationship or the efforts put in by ourselves, Australia and New Zealand.
	When the Prime Minister visited Australia in March 2006, he arranged to set up an annual Australia-UK ministerial meeting. The first of those took place in London in December 2006, with the Foreign and Defence Secretaries, military and intelligence chiefs and their Australian counterparts in attendance. There were discussions on Iraq, Afghanistan, counter-proliferation, counter-terrorism, climate change—including on a UK-Australia energy seminar to develop close working relationships on climate change—and Pacific islands instability.

Greg Hands: Will the Minister say a little about the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) that citizens of Australia and New Zealand should be able to go through the fast-track channel at Heathrow? It seems to me that the channel is used by not only British and EU citizens, but European economic area and Swiss citizens. Surely Australians and New Zealanders could be accommodated in the channel.

Ian McCartney: I will get through as many points as possible. I listened carefully to the wide-ranging speech made by the hon. Member for Romford, some of which we could all accept and understand and some of which was a lot of red herrings. It is important that the all-party group understands that there is a significant, welcome and supportive relationship among the three countries at every level, whether that is political or cultural. I hope that the relationship will be sustained.
	New Zealand was the first country to give women the vote, and I was delighted when Prime Minister Helen Clark visited us last year. She met the Prime Minister and they jointly opened the New Zealand war memorial at Hyde Park corner on 11 November. As the hon. Gentleman said, that was a follow-up to the event that took place three years previously to honour the sacrifices made in not only the first and second world wars, but other circumstances. I was privileged to attend that most moving occasion in November, when I was reminded again of the extraordinary contribution that New Zealand made to the allied effort in the second world war. As Helen Clark said:
	"The War Memorial commemorates the sacrifices which New Zealand and the UK have shared in times of war and serves as a monument to the relationship between our two countries. It will be appreciated by all who see it, both the British people who live in or visit London and also the many New Zealand citizens"
	who are welcomed to the UK. I stop off at the memorial for a few moments during my walks on most days of the week. It is a moving experience on every occasion.
	Just as we have a dialogue on security with our Australian colleagues, we have such dialogue with our colleagues from New Zealand. The last meeting was held in London on 17 November, when talks were held on counter-terrorism, counter-proliferation, counter-narcotics, organised crime and the security implications of the rise of China. The next talks will expand to include a consideration of climate security. I hope that I have been able to explain that there is significant dialogue on all the matters that the hon. Gentleman raised.

Andrew Selous: I declare an interest as a Member who is half-Australian. It strikes me that Australia has quite a lot to teach us on social policy, whether that is through how well it runs its child support agency or through its network of family relationship centres, which do much to prevent family breakdown. Will the Minister reassure us that the Government will focus closely on links involving social policy, perhaps through the Department for Work and Pensions and other Departments?

Ian McCartney: The hon. Gentleman asks a good question and I give him the assurance that he seeks. A lot of work is done and many exchanges take place—and not just political exchanges, but exchanges between officials in Departments. When I was at the Department for Work and Pensions, dealing with pensions, labour market access and training issues, I had a close working relationship with the Australian Minister, Mr. Andrews, although I had to advise him that my cousin was involved in trying to make his seat a Labour seat. However, that was another issue; we agreed to disagree on that. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, because such exchanges are among the most important cornerstones of our relationships, and we learn from each other. We have learned much about social policy from our colleagues in Australia and New Zealand, and vice versa.
	The hon. Member for Romford raised the issue of immigration. On the development of our immigration system, now and in future, we are working closely with Australia and New Zealand to ensure that if we introduce any changes, there will be no disadvantage to citizens from Australia and New Zealand. Discussions with the Home Office are currently taking place, in a positive and constructive atmosphere. Australia and New Zealand are priority countries for our new youth mobility scheme, and that is of critical importance. Discussions on that subject are going ahead, and I will write to the all-party group in more detail about them and what they mean.
	On trade, Australia is a more significant market for UK exports than its comparatively small population of 20 million might suggest. In 2005, we were Australia's fourth largest trading partner after Japan, the United States and China. We sell more to Australia than to India or China, and Australia is the UK's fifth largest market for goods outside the European Union. The agriculture, mining, oil and gas, information and communication technology, biotechnology, creative and media, marine, railways, food and drink, recreation, leisure and aerospace sectors all offer significant opportunities for British companies. Wearing my hat as Minister responsible for UK trade and industry, I view Australia as one of our priority markets. Much of the work that I did when I was in Australia was on developing a strategy with our colleagues there, inward investors and the Australian equivalent of the CBI, an organisation with which I was very impressed. It plays an important role in respect of industry in Australia, and it has a close working relationship with the CBI.
	New Zealand is one of our top 50 export markets for a whole range of goods, including automobiles, tractors and pharmaceuticals. We want to develop trade and investment in that country, and work with it on policies on energy and climate security. We will do further work with New Zealand and Australia in the coming year, to take forward those issues and others. Again, I will write to the all-party group on that point.
	I thank hon. Members for our discussion. Australia and New Zealand are fascinating, and I never thought that I would become a Minister with responsibility for our relationships with them. I have a personal interest in the two countries, not just because of blood relationships or rugby league, but because they are fascinating in themselves. The people are wonderful and have wonderful imaginations, skills, knowledge and a can-do attitude—the very attitude that we have as a nation. As long as I am in this job, I look forward to ensuring a positive relationship with Australia and New Zealand, on every level. Again, I thank the hon. Member for Romford and I will write to him shortly.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Eleven o'clock.